CAR_Public/130326.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 60

                             Headlines



AES CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Greenhouse Gas Suit Pending
AES CORP: Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Still in Evidentiary Stage
AMAZON.COM: Small Online Merchants File Class Action
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Suit in Illinois
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Krueger" Suit Discovery Currently Ongoing

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Appeal From "Lefkowitz" Suit Dismissal Pending
AT&T CORP: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Ex-Worker's FLSA Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Settles Class Action for $153 Million
ATLANTIC POWER: Class Period Expanded in Securities Suit
BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeling Products

BMW NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Mini Cooper Engine Defect
CAR CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Car Title Controversy
CASTLE OIL: Faces Class Action Over Selling Adulterated Fuel Oil
COTT Corporation: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
DEAN FOODS: Class Suits Over Product Mislabeling Remain Pending

DEAN FOODS: Faces New Antitrust Class Action Suit in Tennessee
DEAN FOODS: To Pay 1st Farmers' Suit Deal Installment in June
DELTA AIR: Faces Suit Over Cheating Awards on Frequent Flyers
HCA HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Served With 2nd Amended Complaint in Feb.

HJ HEINZ: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
DIODES INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Texas
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Tosses Brokerage Fraud Class Action
KRAFT FOODS: Gets Prelim. Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
K-SWISS INC: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Delaware & California

LIGHTING SCIENCE: Recalls 554T LED Light Bulbs Due to Fire Risk
MACQUARIE BANK: Settles Storm Clients' Class Action for AUD82.5MM
MCDONALD'S CORP: Judge Lifts Gag Order on Settlement Critic
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Polyurethane Foam-Related Suits Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: April Hearing Set on "Miller" Suit Cert. Bid

NATURA PET: Recalls Specialized Dry Pet Foods Due to Health Risk
NEW JERSEY: Sept. 17 Pilot Program Claims Filing Deadline Set
PDC ENERGY: "Schulein" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
PORTELA LAW: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Filing of Consolidated Complaint

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Antitrust Suit Over CRT Pricing Dismissed
SEALY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Not Backing Up Warranty
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Fusilev
SPI ELECTRICITY: Lead Plaintiff Gives Evidence in Bushfire Suit
STANDARD FIRE: Judge Rules Case Can't Be Kept in State Court

STERLING FINANCIAL: Has Reached $3-MM Deal to Settle ERISA Suits
STERLING FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
VERTEX PHARMA: Lawsuits May Be Filed Over Incivek(R) Side Effects
VIROPHARMA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Penn.
WATKINS SECURITY: Judge Rejects Dismissal of Class Action

WATTS WATER: Continues to Defend Faulty Toilet Connectors Suit

* Attorneys Present Class Action Concerns to U.S. House for Reform


                             *********


AES CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Greenhouse Gas Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against The AES Corporation and numerous unrelated
companies.  The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages.  The Company is unable to estimate the
alleged damages at this time.  These and other plaintiffs
previously brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal
court but failed to obtain relief.  In October 2011, the Company
and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  In
March 2012, the federal court granted the motion and dismissed the
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  The appeal is fully briefed.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will defend itself
vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances
that it will be successful in its efforts.

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

The AES Corporation -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a diversified
power generation and utility company organized into six market-
oriented Strategic Business Units: U.S., Andes (Chile, Colombia,
and Argentina), Brazil, MCAC (Mexico, Central America and
Caribbean), EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), and Asia.  The
Company was incorporated in 1981 and its principal offices are
located in Arlington, Virginia.


AES CORP: Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Still in Evidentiary Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against AES Corporation's subsidiary
in Brazil is still in the evidentiary stage, according to The AES
Corporation's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

AES Florestal, Ltd., had been operating a pole factory and had
other assets, including a wooded area known as "Horto Renner," in
the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.  Florestal had been under
the control of AES Sul since October 1997, when Sul was created
pursuant to a privatization by the Government of the State of Rio
Grande do Sul.  After it came under the control of Sul, Florestal
performed an environmental audit of the entire operational cycle
at the pole factory.  The audit discovered 200 barrels of solid
creosote waste and other contaminants at the pole factory.  The
audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory,
Companhia Estadual de Energia Eletrica ("CEEE"), had been using
those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at
the factory.  Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative
of communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE,
about the adoption of containment and remediation measures.  The
Public Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil
Inquiry n. 24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has
requested that the police station of Triunfo institute a police
investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential
criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole
factory.  The parties filed defenses in response to the civil
inquiry.  The Public Attorney's Office then requested an
injunction which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008, and the
Public Attorney's office no longer has a right to appeal the
decision.  The environmental agency ("FEPAM") has also started a
procedure (Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures
that shall be taken to contain and remediate the contamination.
Also, in March 2000, Sul filed lawsuit against CEEE in the 2nd
Court of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in
Sul's name the Property that it acquired through the privatization
but that remained registered in CEEE's name.  During those
proceedings, AES subsequently waived its claim to re-register the
Property and asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the
Property.  That claim is pending.  In November 2005, the 7th Court
of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be
returned to CEEE.  CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner
since September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April
2006.  In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical
Cooperation Protocol" pursuant to which they requested a new
deadline from FEPAM in order to present a proposal.

In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Class Action
against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction
for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the
payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($3 million).
The injunction was rejected.  The proposal to FEPAM with respect
to containing and remediating the contamination was delivered on
April 8, 2008.  FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties
should undertake the first step of the proposal which would be to
retain a contractor.  In its response, Sul indicated that such
step should be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental
events resulted from CEEE's operations.  In October 2011, the
State Prosecution Office presented a new request to the court of
Triunfo for an injunction against Florestal, Sul and CEEE for the
removal of the alleged sources of contamination and remediation,
and the court granted the injunction against CEEE but did not
grant injunctive relief against Florestal or Sul.  CEEE appealed
such decision, and the State of Rio Grande do Sul Court of Appeals
upheld the decision.  As required by the injunction, CEEE has
started the removal and disposal of the contaminants, which is
ongoing, and Sul is not at risk to bear any of such remediation
costs, which are estimated to be approximately R$14.7 million ($7
million).

In November 2012, the inspections performed by the court expert
and supervised by Sul confirmed that CEEE is fulfilling the
injunction by removing the contaminants.  The case is in the
evidentiary stage awaiting the production of the court's expert
opinion on several matters, including which of the parties had
utilized the products found in the area.

The AES Corporation -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a diversified
power generation and utility company organized into six market-
oriented Strategic Business Units: U.S., Andes (Chile, Colombia,
and Argentina), Brazil, MCAC (Mexico, Central America and
Caribbean), EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), and Asia.  The
Company was incorporated in 1981 and its principal offices are
located in Arlington, Virginia.


AMAZON.COM: Small Online Merchants File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Amy Martinez, writing for Seattle Times, reports that Amazon.com
was hit with a class-action lawsuit on March 15 by online sellers
who allege the Internet giant violates its own terms as well as
Washington state law by holding the sellers' money for more than
90 days.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, seeks full
restitution of "monies wrongfully obtained," plus financial
interest and other unspecified damages.

The suit revolves around Amazon's third-party-seller business,
which enables merchants both large and small to sell their
products on its Web site.  The complaint argues that, by holding
sellers' money longer than allowed, Amazon racks up interest and
uses the extra cash to support its operations.

"The scale of Amazon's practice makes it lucrative," the suit
says.  "On information and belief, Amazon has reaped and continues
to reap many tens of millions of dollars annually from this
practice."

An Amazon spokesman did not return an e-mail or phone call seeking
comment on March 15.

The suit follows a Seattle Times report in November about dozens
of Amazon sellers who complained of tied-up payments and sudden
shutdowns of their accounts.

The Washington state Attorney General's Office received about 120
complaints in three years from Amazon sellers who accused the
company of arbitrarily withholding their payments, The Times
found.

At the center of the suit is Amazon's so-called Participation
Agreement, which gives the company "sole discretion" to withhold
payments for up to 90 days if it believes seller behavior could
cause problems with customers.

The suit argues that Amazon's terms break a Washington state law
requiring "money transmitters" to disburse payments within 10
business days.

The company qualifies as a money transmitter because it requires
sellers on its site to use the Amazon payment-processing service,
according to the lawsuit.  Amazon collects payments from
customers, takes a cut of between 6 and 25 percent, and
distributes the remaining amounts to sellers.

Even so, the suit alleges Seattle-based Amazon violates not only
state law but also its own contractual obligations.

"While Amazon contends to have the contractual basis, in some
instances, for holding the funds for 90 days, Amazon routinely
holds funds beyond the contractual period, often well in excess of
90 days," the suit states.

One of two named plaintiffs is a Kentucky woman who began selling
hard-to-find DVDs on Amazon in October.  She says Amazon suspended
her seller account a month later and held up for 98 days several
hundred dollars in payments owed to her.

The other plaintiff is a Texas man who sold flight-training
materials on Amazon and alleges he had to wait more than 100 days
for several hundred dollars in payments.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, notes Amazon "simply
ignored" the plaintiffs' requests for information about their
tied-up payments, leading them to pursue a legal remedy.

While Amazon sells many products itself, it also relies on other
online merchants to expand its merchandise selection. Third-party
sales account for about 40 percent of all products sold on Amazon
and generate between 9 and 12 percent of the company's annual
revenue, according to analysts.

The suit estimates the total merchandise value of third-party
sales last year averaged more than $160 million a 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," the suit
says.

This is not the first time a major Internet marketplace has been
sued by its sellers.

In 2010, eBay sellers whose accounts were frozen filed a class-
action lawsuit in Northern California, accusing payments processor
and eBay subsidiary PayPal of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.  But U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled PayPal's
pact with sellers gave it broad discretion to freeze accounts
without disclosing the reasons.

The Amazon suit was brought by Seattle law firm Terrell Marshall
Daudt & Willie, as well as The Monts Firm of Austin, Texas.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is facing a putative class action
lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers
vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western
(now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT.
The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's
executives, and several members of RPAI's board.  The action
alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence
and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees
charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements.  The
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.  The Company was served in
December, and there is currently no deadline by which the Company
is required to respond to the complaint.  The Company says it
cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may
result from this matter due to the early procedural status of the
case, the absence of class certification, the lack of a formal
demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' failure to
allege any specific, evidence-based damages.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Ameriprise
Financial is a diversified financial services company with more
than a hundred year history of providing financial solutions.  The
Company offers a broad range of products and services designed to
achieve the financial objectives of individual and institutional
clients.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Krueger" Suit Discovery Currently Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit styled Roger Krueger, et al.
vs. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al. are currently in discovery,
according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan.  The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005, to the
present.  The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual
funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses
relative to other investment options and improper fees paid to
Ameriprise Financial or its subsidiaries.  The action also alleges
that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it
used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company ("ATC") as the Plan
trustee and record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the
sale of the record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages . Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on February 7, 2012.  On April 11, 2012, the
Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
Court denied the motion to dismiss on November 20, 2012, and now
the parties will engage in discovery.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter due to the early
procedural status of the case, the absence of class certification,
the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based
damages.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Ameriprise
Financial is a diversified financial services company with more
than a hundred year history of providing financial solutions.  The
Company offers a broad range of products and services designed to
achieve the financial objectives of individual and institutional
clients.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Appeal From "Lefkowitz" Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit commenced
by Ellen Lefkowitz remains pending, according to Astoria Financial
Corporation's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On February 27, 2012, a putative class action entitled Ellen
Lefkowitz, individually and on behalf of all Persons similarly
situated v. Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association was
commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Queens, or the Queens County Supreme Court, against the Company
alleging that during the proposed class period, the Company
improperly charged overdraft fees to customer accounts when
accounts were not overdrawn, improperly reordered electronic debit
transactions from the highest to the lowest dollar amount and
processed debits before credits to deplete accounts and maximize
overdraft fee income.  The complaint contains the further
assertion that the Company did not adequately inform the Company's
customers that they had the option to "opt-out" of overdraft
services.  The Company was served with the summons and complaint
in such action on February 29, 2012, and was initially required to
reply on or before April 30, 2012.  By Stipulation between the
parties, the Company's time to answer was extended to May 7, 2012,
at which time the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.  On July
19, 2012, the Queens County Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing the complaint in its entirety.  On September 7, 2012,
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial
Department.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.  The Company cannot at this time estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any.  No assurance can be given at this
time that this litigation against the Company will be resolved
amicably, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that
this litigation will not have an impact on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such
impact will not be material.

Astoria Financial Corporation -- http://www.astoriafederal.com/is
a Delaware corporation organized in 1993 as the unitary savings
and loan holding company of Astoria Federal Savings and Loan
Association and its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Lake Success, New York, and its principal
business is the operation of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Astoria
Federal.


AT&T CORP: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Ex-Worker's FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson dismissed a first amended
complaint in the lawsuit captioned CATHY BIRDSONG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T
CORP., AT&T SERVICES, INC., et al, Defendant, No. C12-6175 THE,
(N.D. Cal.).

Ms. Birdsong was employed from October 2008 until June 2012 in
AT&T Services, Inc.'s Information Technology business unit.  In
February 2012, Ms. Birdsong and others in the IT unit were
reclassified from exempt from eligibility for overtime pay to
nonexempt.  Ms. Birdsong brings state and federal law claims for
unpaid wages on behalf of herself and "All California employees of
Defendants in the Business Unit 'information technology' who were
informed that they were being changed from exempt to non-exempt
status on or about February 2012, but were not paid wages for all
hours worked prior to this reclassification."

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss saying Ms. Birdsong
signed a General Release and Waiver of Claims in exchange for
receiving a severance allowance when she was terminated on
June 26, 2012.

"Because Plaintiff has released all claims against Defendants
under state law, her second through seventh causes of action are
hereby dismissed with prejudice," Judge Henderson concluded.  "Her
collective action claim under the [Fair Labor Standards Act] is
also so dismissed as barred by the release."

Moreover, Judge Henderson ruled that since Ms. Birdsong fails to
allege any facts in support of her contention that she was
misclassified as exempt, her first cause of action under the FLSA,
to the extent that she wishes to bring a claim on her own behalf,
is dismissed, "without prejudice to Plaintiff's properly re-
pleading an individual cause of action under the FLSA."

Any amended complaint must be filed on or before April 17, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's March 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/WkVT9bfrom Leagle.com.


AT&T MOBILITY: Settles Class Action for $153 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Missouri Lawyers Media reports that AT&T Mobility has agreed to
pay $153 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the
company overcharged millions of customers.  St. Louis Circuit
Judge David L. Dowd approved the settlement as well as attorneys'
fees and expenses in two separate orders on March 14.


ATLANTIC POWER: Class Period Expanded in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 14 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of
Atlantic Power Corporation common stock during an expanded class
period from July 23, 2010 through March 4, 2013, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 8, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-
4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Atlantic Power and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Defendant Atlantic Power is a power generation and
infrastructure company with a portfolio of assets in the United
States and Canada.  The Company is engaged in power generation
through hydro, natural gas and coal fired power plants.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business practices and financial results.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that: (i) the cash flows the Company was
using to pay a 10% dividend payout were being funded by revenues
derived from companies Atlantic Power was spending tens of
millions of dollars to acquire during the Class Period; (ii)
Atlantic Power's losses from operations were mounting,
jeopardizing the Company's ability to maintain the outsized
dividend payment; and (iii) defendants knew that many of the
Company's project contracts were scheduled to expire over the
course of 2013, meaning cash flows from those projects would be
substantially lower after those contracts ended, and unbeknownst
to investors, Atlantic Power was not replacing those contracts --
further jeopardizing its ability to maintain the outsized dividend
payment that was supporting its stock price.  As a result of
defendants' materially false and misleading statements, Atlantic
Power common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period, reaching an intraday high of $16.28
per share by August 1, 2012.

According to the complaint, as the market learned the truth about
Atlantic Power's mounting losses and its inability to maintain its
outsized dividend through a number of misleading financial
disclosures between November 7, 2012 and March 4, 2013, more than
$1 billion of the Company's market capitalization disappeared.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Atlantic Power common stock during the Class Period, including
purchasers in the Company's registered public follow-on stock
offerings on October 13, 2010, October 13, 2011, and June 27,
2012, and those who acquired shares pursuant to Atlantic Power's
dividend reinvestment plan commenced on August 8, 2012.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

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


BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeling Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Bimbo Bakeries of mislabeling its bread, as 100% whole
wheat, as an "excellent source" of nutrition, and in other ways.


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Mini Cooper Engine Defect
------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that BMW of North America
LLC was hit with a proposed class action on March 13 in New Jersey
federal court alleging an engine defect in some of its 2007-09
Mini Cooper vehicles have cost vehicle owners thousands of dollars
in repair and replacement costs.  Named plaintiffs Joshua Skeen
and Laurie Freeman contend BMW has known of the defect, which
causes cars to suddenly quit without warning, since 2008, but
failed to tell prospective purchasers about the problem, offer a
recall or reimburse vehicle owners who have already paid.


CAR CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Car Title Controversy
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that an Alton woman accuses an auto finance company of failing to
turn over her car title even after her loan was paid in full.
Kelli C. Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against Car Credit Acceptance
Co. LLC on March 6 in Madison County Circuit Court.

Ms. Thompson bought a 2006 Chevrolet HHR and financed the purchase
through Credit Acceptance, according to the complaint.  In January
2012, Thompson says she made the final payment needed to satisfy
the outstanding lien on the vehicle.  Illinois Motor Vehicle Code
requires the lien holder to release its security interest and
transfer the title to the proper owner, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Thompson contends she has made numerous attempts to get the
title from Credit Acceptance to no avail.  She is asking to be
awarded damages in the amount of $250 plus costs and fees
associated with obtaining the title.

Ms. Thompson is also asking for the case to be certified as a
class action lawsuit.  There are believed to be at least one-
hundred others with an identical complaint against Credit
Acceptance, the petition reads.  Ms. Thompson says a class action
is the appropriate method for "fair and efficient adjudication."
Ms. Thompson is asking the Court to award her and the foregoing
Plaintiff Class actual and other appropriate damages as deemed
appropriate.

Attorney Shari L. Murphy of Wood River represents Ms. Thompson and
the proposed class.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 13-L-374


CASTLE OIL: Faces Class Action Over Selling Adulterated Fuel Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that separate class actions claim
Castle Oil Corp. and Hess Corp. sell fuel oil adulterated with
waste oil, in New York County Supreme Court.


COTT Corporation: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cott Corporation is defending itself against class action lawsuits
filed in Canada alleging the unauthorized use of container
deposits and imposition of recycling fees on consumers, 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 29,
2012.

In January 2005, the Company was named as one of many defendants
in a class action lawsuit alleging the unauthorized use by the
defendants of container deposits and the imposition of recycling
fees on consumers.  On June 2, 2006, the British Columbia Supreme
Court granted the summary trial application, which resulted in the
dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against the Company and the
other defendants.  On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of the action to the British Columbia Court of Appeals
which was denied, and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was
rejected on December 20, 2007.  In February 2005, similar class
action claims were filed in a number of other Canadian provinces.
Claims filed in Quebec have since been discontinued, but is
unclear how the dismissal of the British Columbia case will impact
the other cases.

Cott Corporation -- http://www.cott.com/-- is one of the world's
largest producers of beverages on behalf of retailers, brand
owners and distributors.  The Company's product lines include
carbonated soft drinks, 100% shelf stable juice and juice-based
products, clear, still and sparkling flavored waters, energy
products, sports products, new age beverages, and ready-to-drink
teas, as well as alcoholic beverages for brand owners.  The
Company was incorporated in 1955 headquartered in Tampa, Florida,
and Ontario, Canada.


DEAN FOODS: Class Suits Over Product Mislabeling Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits alleging mislabeling of WhiteWave's Horizon
Organic products remain pending, according to Dean Foods 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 sells products for human consumption, which involves a
number of risks.  Product contamination, spoilage, other
adulteration, misbranding, or product tampering could require the
Company to recall products.  The Company also may be subject to
liability if its products or operations violate applicable laws or
regulations, including environmental, health, and safety
requirements, or in the event the Company's products cause injury,
illness, or death.  In addition, the Company's product advertising
could make the Company the target of claims relating to false or
deceptive advertising under U.S. federal and state laws, including
the consumer protection statutes of some states, or laws of other
jurisdictions in which the Company operates.  For example, the
Company and its subsidiary, The WhiteWave Foods Company, were
named in a putative class action mislabeling complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in
September 2011, which was followed by similar actions filed in six
additional jurisdictions.  All of these lawsuits allege generally
that the Company lack scientific substantiation for certain
product claims related to its WhiteWave's Horizon Organic products
supplemented with DHA
Omega-3.

A significant product liability, consumer fraud, or other legal
judgment against the Company or a widespread product recall may
negatively impact its profitability.  Moreover, claims or
liabilities of this sort might not be covered by insurance or by
any rights of indemnity or contribution that the Company may have
against others.  Even if a product liability, consumer fraud, or
other claim is found to be without merit or is otherwise
unsuccessful, the negative publicity surrounding such assertions
regarding the Company's products or processes could materially and
adversely affect the Company's reputation and brand image,
particularly in categories that are promoted as having strong
health and wellness credentials.  Any loss of consumer confidence
in the Company's product ingredients or in the safety and quality
of its products would be difficult and costly to overcome.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States.  The Company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The Company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation.  Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DEAN FOODS: Faces New Antitrust Class Action Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company is facing a new antitrust class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade
A milk, 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 putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The
Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company, either acting alone
or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also
defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the
defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices
for direct milk purchasers.  The Defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in
part in August 2010.  The Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and filed a supplemental
motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims on
September 27, 2010.  On March 27, 2012, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and
entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the
Company.  The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 25,
2012.  On May 30, 2012, the Company participated in a scheduling
conference and mediation conducted by the appeals court.  The
mediation did not result in a settlement agreement.  Pursuant to
the briefing schedule issued by the appeals court, briefing on the
appeal should be complete on or about April 5, 2013.  The appeals
court has not set a date for oral argument at this time.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the
"indirect purchaser action").  The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve
state law claims.  Because the allegations in the indirect
purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the
outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.
On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit.  On January 17, 2013, these same
plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "2013
indirect purchaser action").  The allegations are similar to those
in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but
involve only claims arising under Tennessee law.  At this time,
the Company has not been served with the complaint in the 2013
indirect purchaser action.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States.  The Company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The Company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation.  Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DEAN FOODS: To Pay 1st Farmers' Suit Deal Installment in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company expects to make the first installment payment
in June 2013 with respect to its settlement of the Tennessee Dairy
Farmer Actions, 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 June 15, 2012, the Company received final approval of a
settlement agreement with respect to a group of six antitrust
class actions alleging that the Company and others in the milk
industry worked together to limit the price Southeastern dairy
farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers
access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities.  Under the
settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of up to
$140 million over a period of four to five years into a fund for
distribution to dairy farmer class members in a number of
Southeastern states.  In the second quarter of 2011, the Company
recorded a $131.3 million charge and a corresponding liability for
the present value of the Company's obligations under the original
settlement agreement, based on imputed interest computed at a rate
of 4.77%, which approximates the Company's like-term incremental
fixed rate borrowing cost.

Per the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 21, 2012,
the Company made a payment of $60 million into an escrow account
to be distributed following the Court's final approval, and issued
a standby letter of credit in the amount of $80 million to support
subsequent payments due under the agreement.  The settlement
agreement requires the Company to make a payment of up to $20
million on each of the following four anniversaries of the
settlement agreement's final approval date.  The Company expects
to make the first installment payment in June 2013.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States.  The Company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The Company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation.  Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DELTA AIR: Faces Suit Over Cheating Awards on Frequent Flyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Delta Air Lines, US Airways,
and United Continental face separate class actions claiming they
cheat on awarding frequent flyer miles, in Federal Court.


HCA HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief.  The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering.  The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering.  It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors.  The action alleged various
deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration
Statement.  Subsequently, two additional class action complaints,
Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011, and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.  On May 3, 2012, the
court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension
Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action.  On July 13,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering.  It further
asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules
Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company.  The
consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012.  The Court has scheduled a
hearing on the motion for March 2013.

Founded in 1968, HCA Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides health care services in the United States.  The Company
owns, manages, or operates hospitals, freestanding surgery
centers, diagnostic and imaging centers, radiation and oncology
therapy centers, rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, and
various other facilities.  The Company is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Served With 2nd Amended Complaint in Feb.
------------------------------------------------------------
Health Management Associates, Inc. disclosed in its February 27,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it was
served a second amended consolidated securities complaint in
February 2013.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against Health Management and certain of its executive officers,
one of whom is a director, were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption In Re:
Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-00046-
JES-DNF) and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead
plaintiffs.  On July 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period from July
27, 2009, through January 9, 2012.  The amended consolidated
complaint (i) alleges that Health Management made false and
misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its
business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that Health
Management inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent
Medicare billing practices that entailed admitting patients to
observation status when they should not have been admitted at all
and to inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.  On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.  The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint.  On December 15,
2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and
providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed
amended pleadings.

On February 11, 2013, the defendants were served with the second
amended consolidated complaint, which asserts the same claims as
the amended consolidated complaint.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit.  Because this lawsuit is in its early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or determine
the potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution.

Health Management Associates, Inc. -- http://www.hma.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the operation of general
acute care hospitals and other health care facilities in non-urban
communities in the United States.  The Company was founded in 1977
and is based in Naples, Florida.


HJ HEINZ: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 15 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
holders of H.J. Heinz Company common stock on February 14, 2013,
in connection with the proposed acquisition of Heinz by Berkshire
Hathaway, Inc. and 3G Capital Management, LLC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 15, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins, Esq. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

The complaint charges the Heinz Board of Directors, Berkshire and
3G Capital with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and breaches of fiduciary duty and/or the aiding and abetting of
such breaches in connection with the Proposed Acquisition.  Heinz
is the most global of all U.S.-based food companies, providing
nutritious and convenient foods for families in 200 countries
around the world.

On February 14, 2013, Heinz, Berkshire and 3G Capital announced
that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement under
which Heinz would be acquired by Berkshire and 3G Capital for
$72.50 per share.  The complaint alleges that the Proposed
Acquisition is the result of an unfair sales process designed to
ensure that only Berkshire and 3G Capital have the opportunity to
acquire Heinz in breach of the fiduciary duties owed to Heinz by
the Board.  The complaint also alleges that the Board, Berkshire
and 3G Capital violated Secs. 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act by
issuing a false Proxy Statement in connection with the Proposed
Acquisition on March 4, 2013.  The Proxy Statement contains a
number of false and misleading statements that are material to
shareholders who are expected to rely upon the Proxy Statement to
determine whether to approve the Proposed Acquisition. These
include facts relating to: (a) the strategic alternatives
available to the Company; (b) the financial projections relied on
by the Board's financial advisors in their valuation analyses; (c)
the inputs and data underlying the financial analyses of the
Board's financial advisors; and (d) the potential conflicts of
interest burdening Heinz's financial advisors.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief derivatively on
behalf of Heinz and on behalf of holders of Heinz common stock on
February 14, 2013.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

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


DIODES INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 15 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Diodes, Inc. common
stock during the period between February 9, 2011 and June 9, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 15, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. of Robbins
Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Diodes and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Diodes, together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures and
supplies application specific standard products in the discrete,
logic and analog semiconductor markets primarily in Asia, North
America and Europe.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.
Specifically, it alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the
Company's labor problems associated with its backend facility in
China were much more severe and prolonged than publicly
represented; (b) that the Company's gross margins were being
impacted by higher than expected wages and labor shortages; (c)
that the Company was experiencing decreasing demand for its
products, especially from its LED TV and notebook customers; and
(d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for their positive statements about the Company and its
prospects.

On June 9, 2011, Diodes updated its financial guidance for the
second quarter of 2011.  For the second quarter, the Company
maintained its revenue guidance of $170 to $178 million, but
lowered its gross margin guidance to 32.5% plus or minus 1.5% as
compared to its previous guidance of 36.5% plus or minus 1%.
Defendants explained that the Company's gross margin was "being
impacted by a mix shift due to a softening of demand and the
slower than expected recovery from the previously disclosed
manpower shortages at the Company's packaging facilities."  In
reaction to the announcement, the price of Diodes stock fell $4.38
per share over the next two trading days, or just over 16%, to
close at $22.98 per share, on heavy trading volume.

On August 9, 2011, Diodes announced its financial results for the
second quarter of 2011, the period ended June 30, 2011.  For the
quarter, the Company reported revenue of $169.8 million -- below
the Company's guidance -- and gross profit margin of 32.8% -- at
the low end of the Company's guidance.

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

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Tosses Brokerage Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on March 15 threw out a class action lawsuit against
JPMorgan Chase & Co , making it easier for companies that clear
trades to avoid being accountable to investors who are defrauded
by their brokerages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said
clearing firms need "sufficiently direct" involvement in a
brokerage's fraud, by instigating or directing it or through other
"extraordinarily high involvement," to create a duty to disclose
or correct the improper conduct.

Absent such a duty, brokerage customers could not sue as a group
on the ground that they relied on inadequate disclosures, a three-
judge appeals court panel said.

"A clearing broker's knowledge of the fraud alone is an
insufficient basis on which to impose a duty of disclosure,"
Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote for the panel.

Clearing firms perform such activities as delivering securities,
maintaining records, safeguarding customer funds, and sending
trade confirmations and monthly statements.

The case concerned activities at Sterling Foster & Co, a defunct
Melville, New York-based penny stock firm that federal
investigators said was a boiler room that defrauded thousands of
investors out of more than $70 million in the 1990s.  Randolph
Pace, who prosecutors said ran the fraud, was sentenced to 8-1/3
years in prison in 2002.

Investors had accused Bear Stearns Cos, which JPMorgan bought in
2008, of helping Sterling manipulate a September 1996 initial
public offering for ML Direct Inc., a marketer of products sold
through infomercials and home shopping networks.  According to the
investors, Sterling offered 3.9 million ML Direct shares though it
had fewer than 1.1 million to sell, and covered the resulting 2.86
million share short position by purchasing shares from insiders at
a big discount.

The investors said this let Sterling pocket more than $24 million,
a profit exceeding 400 percent, when it sold the shares to the
public at a price inflated by the artificial shortage.  According
to the investors, Bear knew about the fraud through its role as a
clearing broker, and furthered it by extending credit to Sterling,
carrying the short position on its books, and dutifully mailing
trade confirmations to them.

In July 2010, U.S. District Judge Arthur Spatt in Central Islip,
New York certified a class action.  He said the Sterling customers
were entitled to rely on Bear to handle their trades properly, and
disclose behind-the-scenes activity at Sterling.

But the 2nd Circuit said Bear's relationship with Sterling was too
distant to warrant a special duty to the investors.

The investors "allege, at most, that Bear Stearns approved the ML
Direct offering; that it agreed to serve as clearing broker for
the offering; and that it may have violated certain NASD rules and
Federal Reserve regulations," Judge Livingston wrote.  "We think
substantially more direct participation by the clearing broker is
required for a duty of disclosure to exist."

Leslie Trager, a lawyer for the investors, said in a phone
interview he is weighing his options.

"The 2nd Circuit's ruling has for the first time held that a
clearing firm has no duty to disclose that it is knowingly
participating in market manipulation by its introducing broker,"
he said. "It is a sad day for investor protection."

JPMorgan spokesman Justin Perras had no immediate comment.

The case is Levitt et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 10-4596.


KRAFT FOODS: Gets Prelim. Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in OWENS v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC.

The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Agreement filed by
the parties is within the range of reasonableness which could
ultimately be given final approval by the Court.  The Court
further held that the settlement amount is fair and reasonable to
Class Members.

Westrup Klick, LLP and Michael L. Carver, Labor Law Office, A.P.C.
-- carverm@aol.com -- are confirmed as class counsel.

Plaintiff Dolores Owens is deemed class representative.

"Putative Class Members" include all persons who were employed as
Cultured Packaging Technicians at the Tulare facility and at the
Fresno (South Orange Ave.) facility, Filler Operators who
previously worked, or currently work on the Capri Production line,
and Filler Operators who previously worked or currently work on
the Kool Aid Burst production line at any time between September
22, 2006 through the date of preliminary approval of the
Settlement by the Court and who have not previously adjudicated or
released the Release Claims as that term is defined in the
Agreement.

The Settlement Class and Settlement Class Members means all
Putative Class Members who do not request exclusion from the
Settlement within the parameters of the Agreement.

The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Administrator, CPT
Group, Inc., is an adequate claims administrator, and the proposed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement fairly
and adequately advises Putative Class Members of the terms of the
proposed Settlement and the benefits available to Putative Class
Members.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. on July 29,
2013, at the United States District Court, Eastern District of
California, Courtroom 2, 8th floor, to consider the fairness,
adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement.

The case is DOLORES OWENS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC.,
doing business as KRAFT FOODS, INC. and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:10-CV-02062-AWI-SMS, (E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's March 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/ineWhEfrom Leagle.com.


K-SWISS INC: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Delaware & California
----------------------------------------------------------------
K-Swiss Inc. is facing merger-related class action lawsuits in
Delaware and California, 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 January 16, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with E-Land World Limited,
a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea
("Parent" or "E-Land"), Ian Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with
and into the Company, with the Company surviving as an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").  The Merger is
expected to close in the second quarter of 2013.

On January 22, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
David Raul as custodian for Malka Raul Utma NY, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated stockholders, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, C.A. No. 8239-CS, against K-
Swiss, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, and Merger
Sub challenging the proposed Merger.  The lawsuit asserts claims
for breach of fiduciary duty against the K-Swiss directors and
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against K-Swiss and
Merger Sub.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed Merger,
rescission or rescissory damages if the proposed Merger is
consummated, an accounting, costs, attorneys' and expert fees, and
any other relief the court may deem proper.

On January 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Mark Weiderman, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Ventura, Case No. 56-2013-00430951-CU-BC-
VTA, against K-Swiss, the members of the Company's Board of
Directors, and E-Land challenging the proposed Merger.  The
lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the K-
Swiss directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against K-Swiss and E-Land.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the proposed Merger, an injunction
directing the K-Swiss directors to exercise their fiduciary duties
to obtain a transaction which is in the best interest of K-Swiss's
stockholders, rescission of the proposed Merger to the extent it
is implemented, costs, attorneys' and expert fees and costs, and
other equitable and/or injunctive relief the court may deem
proper.

On January 25, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Timothy Coyne, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC499935, against K-
Swiss, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, E-Land and
Merger Sub challenging the proposed Merger.  The lawsuit asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the K-Swiss directors
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against E-Land
and Merger Sub.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the proposed Merger and initiating any defensive
measures that would inhibit their ability to maximize value for K-
Swiss stockholders, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger
is consummated, an accounting, costs, attorneys' and expert fees,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the
court deems proper.

Founded in 1966 and headquartered in Westlake Village, California,
K-Swiss Inc. -- http://www.kswiss.com/-- designs, develops and
markets an array of footwear, apparel and accessories for
athletic, high performance sports and fitness activities and
casual wear under the K-Swiss brand.  Since July 2008, the Company
also designs, develops and markets footwear for adventurers for
all terrains under the Palladium brand.


LIGHTING SCIENCE: Recalls 554T LED Light Bulbs Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Lighting Science Group Corporation, of Satellite Beach,
Florida, and manufacturer, Citizen Electronics and Lighting
Science Group, announced a voluntary recall of about 554,000 LED
Light Bulbs.  Consumers should stop using this product, which is
being recalled voluntarily, unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The bulbs can overheat during use, posing a fire hazard.

Lighting Science Group is aware of 68 incidents of product
failures, eight of which were accompanied by visible smoke or fire
conditions.  The incidents include damage to light sockets, melted
fixtures, burned rugs/carpet/ floors, damage to a circuit and to a
lamp.  There have been no reports of personal injuries.

The 120-volt LED bulbs, sold as 6- 8- and 9-watt bulbs (equivalent
to 40 or 50 watts), were marketed under the brand names Definity,
EcoSmart, Sylvania and Westinghouse.  The model numbers A19, G25
and R20/PAR20 are found on the packaging and on the light-colored
circular neck above the base of the bulb where the date code is
also printed.  The date code reflects the week and year of
manufacture; for example date code L4010 was produced during the
40th week of 2010.  The date codes listed below may have the
letters "CH" or "MX" at the end.  For example, date code L4010 can
also appear as L4010CH or L4010MX.  The date codes are:

   L4010    L4110    L4210    L4310
   L4410    L4510    L4610    L4710
   L4810    L4910    L5010    L5110
   L5210    L0111    L0211    L0311
   L0411    L0511    L0611    L0711
   L0811    L0911    L1011    L1111

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/GTnCJE

The recalled products were manufactured in China (with a small
number of products having final assembly in Florida or Mexico) and
sold at various retailers including hardware and lighting and
electrical supply stores.

Consumers should immediately remove the bulbs from sockets and
lamps and contact Light Science Group for replacement bulbs.
Lighting Science Group may be reached toll free at (855) 574-2533
from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.lsgc.com/recall/


MACQUARIE BANK: Settles Storm Clients' Class Action for AUD82.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Star reports that Storm financial clients will get an
AUD82.5 million settlement after dropping a class action against
Macquarie Bank, a statement filed to the stock exchange revealed
on March 15.

The bank filed the ASX statement announcing it had reached a
settlement agreement after more than four months in mediation
talks with the former Storm Financial clients.  It is understood
the settlement included an acknowledgement by investors in Storm
Financial there was no wrongdoing by Macquarie.

The statement filed by the bank said the bank would pay investors
AUD82.5 million, including costs, and the pay-out would have no
impact on the company's financial position.  It will also require
the approval of the Federal Court.

Due to other ongoing litigation over the break-up of Storm
Financial, the bank would not make any further comment.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Judge Lifts Gag Order on Settlement Critic
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Lee, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a judge has
reversed an order banning a Michigan man from criticizing a class
action settlement on Facebook.  A McDonald's restaurant in
Dearborn, MI, allegedly advertised non-halal meat as halal,
outraging Muslims who ate there.  A class action lawsuit was
filed, resulting in a settlement that would give money to the
named plaintiff, two charities, and the plaintiff's lawyers, but
not to any other Muslims who were affected.

A Muslim attorney named Majed Moughni posted a note on Facebook
objecting to the settlement.  Under the terms of the class action
settlement, any victim who didn't object to the settlement would
lose their right to sue McDonald's without receiving compensation.
Mr. Moughni argued that compensation should be paid to affected
McDonald's customers, not to area charities that had no real
connection to the case.

But the plaintiff's lawyers, who were in line to receive thousands
of dollars from the settlement, asked the judge to order
Mr. Moughni's comments removed from Facebook and replaced with the
official class action notification.  Last month, Public Citizen
agreed to represent Mr. Moughni and filed a request to lift the
judge's gag order.

The plaintiff had argued that Mr. Moughni's statements were
defamatory, and that he was misleading affected Muslims about
their rights (or lack thereof) under the proposed settlement.
Public Citizen pointed out to the court that the plaintiff's
attorneys had not demonstrated that Mr. Moughni's statements were
untrue.  Moreover, the judge's order barred Mr. Moughni from
making any comments about the settlement, which Public Citizen
argued was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

On March 11, (the aptly named) Judge Kathleen MacDonald lifted the
gag order.  But Public Citizen said her reasoning leaves open the
door to future retaliation.  Rather than clearly ruling on First
Amendment grounds, she accepted a request from McDonald's to drop
the injunction after Mr. Moughni promised that he was not seeking
to represent potential objectors.

Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy, Mr. Moughni's lawyer, wrote in a
blog post that even as she lifted her gag order, "the judge
proclaimed that she had done the right thing in suppressing
Moughni's speech in the first place," Mr. Levy wrote.  If
Wayne County judges don't change their tune, Mr. Levy suggested,
"serious intervention from the appellate courts is going to be
needed."

Moreover, McDonald's may not be done trying to punish Mr. Moughni
for speaking out.  "There have been indications that McDonald's
line of reasoning was intended to set the stage for later efforts
to force Moughni to pay damages for having had the audacity to
oppose the settlement," Mr. Levy wrote.  McDonald's recently
described Mr. Moughni as a "third-party tortfeasor", suggesting
that the company might be planning further legal action against
him once the settlement has been approved.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Polyurethane Foam-Related Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of
Mohawk Industries, Inc.'s carpet underlay division had engaged in
price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  Mohawk has been
named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases (the
first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated
amended class action complaints, the first filed on February 28,
2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21,
2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers.  All pending
cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been
filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings
under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present.  Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief
against future violations.  In December 2011, the Company was
named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor
Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing
Company, et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc.
et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec,
Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the
Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages
and punitive damages.  The Company denies all of the allegations
in these actions and will vigorously defend itself.

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

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of
all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made
for probable losses that are reasonably estimable.  These
contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and the
Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any,
in excess of amounts accrued.  The Company does not believe that
the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition but could have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or
liquidity in a given quarter or year.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mohawkind.com/-- is a
supplier of flooring for both residential and commercial
applications.  Mohawk offers a complete selection of carpet,
ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone, vinyl, and rugs.  The Company
is headquartered in Calhoun, Georgia.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: April Hearing Set on "Miller" Suit Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in the lawsuit initiated by
Gaylord L. Miller will be heard in early April 2013, according to
Mueller Industries, Inc.'s February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 29, 2012.

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by
Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against
Extruded in March 2012 under nuisance, negligence, and gross
negligence theories.  It is brought on behalf of all persons in
the City of Belding, Michigan, whose property rights have
allegedly been interfered with by fallout and/or dust and/or
noxious odors, allegedly attributable to Extruded's operations.
Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered interference with the
use and enjoyment of their properties.  They seek compensatory and
exemplary damages and injunctive relief.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend this matter.  At this time, the
Company is unable to determine the impact, if any, that this
matter will have on its financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows.

A mediation between the parties was held on November 8, 2012.  The
parties did not reach a settlement.  Discovery is proceeding in
the matter, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be
heard in early April 2013.  The Company plans to have a motion for
summary disposition heard on or before that date.  The Company
believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is
remote.

Memphis, Tennessee-based Mueller Industries, Inc. --
http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar and shapes; aluminum and
brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic
fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; and
fabricated tubular products.  Mueller's operations are located
throughout the United States and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
and China.


NATURA PET: Recalls Specialized Dry Pet Foods Due to Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natura Pet Products is voluntarily recalling specific lots of dry
pet food because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.  No Salmonella-related illnesses have been reported.

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

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

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

These products were made in a single production facility during a
two week window in December 2012.  Routine testing by the Michigan
Department of Agriculture collected from a single retail location
tested positive for the presence of Salmonella.  As a
precautionary measure, Natura is voluntarily recalling all
products from this production window.

The affected products are sold in bags through veterinary clinics,
select pet specialty retailers, and online in the United States,
Canada, Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong, and Costa Rica.
Product expiration dates range from 12/17/2013 - 1/2/2014.
Product was distributed by Natura Pet Products between
December 18, 2012, through March 15, 2013.  No other dry food,
canned food, biscuits, bars or treats are affected by this
announcement.

Additional information on these products can be found at
http://www.naturapet.com/

Consumers who have purchased the specific dry pet foods listed
should discard them.

For further information or a product replacement or refund call
Natura toll-free at 800-224-6123, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. Central Standard Time).

Please see the Table of Affected Products.

                                                     All Lot
BRAND         DESCRIPTION                  SIZE     Numbers
-----         -----------                  ----     -------
CALIFORNIA    DOG KANGAROO & RED LENTILS   4 oz     2362A70004
NATURAL       GRAIN FREE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15987 4

CALIFORNIA    DOG KANGAROO & RED LENTILS   30 LB    2362A70001
NATURAL       GRAIN FREE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 39940 9

CALIFORNIA    DOG KANGAROO & RED LENTILS   15 LB    2362A70002
NATURAL       GRAIN FREE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 39941 6

CALIFORNIA    DOG KANGAROO & RED LENTILS   5 LB     2362A70003
NATURAL       GRAIN FREE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 39942 3

CALIFORNIA    DOG KANGAROO & RED LENTILS   30 LB    3015A70001
NATURAL       GRAIN FREE - BILINGUAL

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12564 0

EVO           CAT & KITTEN TURKEY &        4 oz     2355A70004,
               CHICKEN FORMULA                       2366A70004

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15250 9

EVO           CAT & KITTEN TURKEY &        15.4 LB  2356A70002,
               CHICKEN FORMULA                       2366A70002

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41400 3

EVO           CAT & KITTEN TURKEY &        6.6 LB   2355A70003,
               CHICKEN FORMULA                       2356A70003,
                                                     3001A70003,
BAG UPC: 7 51485 41401 0                            3002

EVO           CAT & KITTEN TURKEY &        2.2 LB   2355A70004,
               CHICKEN FORMULA                       2356A70004,
                                                     2366A70004
BAG UPC: 7 51485 41402 7

EVO           CAT HERRING & SALMON         4 oz     2357A70004,
               FORMULA                               2361A70004

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15251 6

EVO           CAT HERRING & SALMON         15.4 LB  2361A70002
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41410 2

EVO           CAT HERRING & SALMON         6.6 LB   2361A70003,
               FORMULA                               2362A70003

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41411 9

EVO           CAT HERRING & SALMON         2.2 LB   2361A70004
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41412 6

EVO           DOG RED MEAT FORMULA         28.6 LB  2363A70001
               LARGE BITE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12675 3

EVO           DOG RED MEAT FORMULA         13.2 LB  2363A70002
               LARGE BITE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12676 0

EVO           DOG RED MEAT FORMULA         6.6 LB   2363A70003
               LARGE BITE

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12677 7

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN         4 oz     2356A70004
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15255 4

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN         28.6 LB  2356A70001
               SENIOR FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12685 2

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN         13.2 LB  2356A70002
               SENIOR FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12686 9

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN         6.6 LB   2356A70003
               SENIOR FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12687 6

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN WEIGHT  28.6 LB  2366A70001
               MANAGEMENT FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12616 6

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN WEIGHT  13.2 LB  2364A70002
               MANAGEMENT FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12617 3

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN WEIGHT  6.6LB    2366A70003
               MANAGEMENT FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12618 0

EVO           DOG TURKEY & CHICKEN WEIGHT  4 oz     2366A70004
               MANAGEMENT FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15205 9

EVO           FERRET FOOD TURKEY &         6.6 LB   2355A70003,
               CHICKEN FORMULA                       3002A70003

BAG UPC: 7 51485 42101 8

HEALTHWISE    DOG CHICKEN MEAL & OATMEAL   4 oz     2362A70004
               WEIGHT CONTROL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15442 8

HEALTHWISE    DOG CHICKEN MEAL & OATMEAL   35 LB    2361A70001
               WEIGHT CONTROL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70720 4

HEALTHWISE    DOG CHICKEN MEAL & OATMEAL   17.5 LB  2361A70002
               WEIGHT CONTROL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70721 1

HEALTHWISE    DOG CHICKEN MEAL & OATMEAL   5 LB     2362A70003
               WEIGHT CONTROL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70722 8

HEALTHWISE    DOG LAMB MEAL & OATMEAL      4 oz     2362A70004
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15444 2

HEALTHWISE    DOG LAMB MEAL & OATMEAL      35 LB    2361A70001,
               FORMULA                               2362A70001

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70740 2

HEALTHWISE    DOG LAMB MEAL & OATMEAL      17.5 LB  2361A70002,
               FORMULA                               2362A70002

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70741 9


HEALTHWISE    DOG LAMB MEAL & OATMEAL      5 LB     2362A70003
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70742 6

HEALTHWISE    PUPPY CHICKEN MEAL & BROWN   4 oz     2362A70004
               RICE FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15443 5

HEALTHWISE    PUPPY CHICKEN MEAL & BROWN   35 LB    2362A70001
               RICE FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70730 3

HEALTHWISE    PUPPY CHICKEN MEAL & BROWN   17.5 LB  2362A70002
               RICE FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70731 0

HEALTHWISE    PUPPY CHICKEN MEAL & BROWN   5 LB     2353A70003,
               RICE FORMULA                          2362A70003

BAG UPC: 7 51485 70732 7

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2363A70004
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15995 9

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       2.2 LB   2363A70004
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41387 7

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       15 LB    2362A70002,
               FORMULA                               2363A70002

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41392 1

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       6 LB     2362A70003,
               FORMULA                               2363A70003

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41393 8

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2353A70004
               SENIOR 8 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15998 0

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2353A70004
               SENIOR 8 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15998 0

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       2.2 LB   2353A70004
               SENIOR 8 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41603 8

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       15 LB    2353A70002
               SENIOR 8 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41607 6

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       6 LB     2353A70003
               SENIOR 8 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41608 3

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2354A70004,
               WEIGHT MANAGEMENT FORMULA             2363A70004,
                                                     2364A70004
BAG UPC: 7 51485 15988 1

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       15 LB    2354A70002,
               WEIGHT MANAGEMENT FORMULA             2362A70001,
                                                     2363A70001
BAG UPC: 7 51485 41389 1

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       6 LB     2354A70003,
               WEIGHT MANAGEMENT FORMULA             2364A70003

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41390 7

INNOVA        CAT TURKEY AND CHICKEN       2.2 LB   2354A70004,
               WEIGHT MANAGEMENT FORMULA             2363A70004

BAG UPC: 7 51485 41391 4

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE BEEF    25 LB    2361A70001
               AND LAMB MEAL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12730 9

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE BEEF    12 LB    2361A70001
               AND LAMB MEAL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12731 6

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE BEEF    5 LB     2361A70003
               AND LAMB MEAL FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12732 3

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE         4 oz     2362A70004
               HERRING AND SALMON FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12365 3

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE         25 LB    2366A70001,
               HERRING AND SALMON FORMULA            3001A70001,
                                                     3038A70001
BAG UPC: 7 51485 12727 9

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE         12 LB    2363A70002,
               HERRING AND SALMON FORMULA            2364A70002

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12728 6

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE         5 LB     2363A70003,
               HERRING AND SALMON FORMULA            2364A70003

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12729 3

INNOVA        DOG PRIME GRAIN FREE         4 oz     2364A70004
               HERRING AND SALMON FORMULA
BAG UPC: 7 51485 15313 1

INNOVA        DOG SALMON AND HERRING       25 LB    2357A70001,
               FORMULA                               2361A70001,
                                                     2363A70002
BAG UPC: 7 51485 12362 2

INNOVA        DOG SALMON AND HERRING       12 LB    2361A70002
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12363 9

INNOVA        DOG SALMON AND HERRING       5 LB     2363A70003
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12364 6

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       30 LB    2354A70002,
               LARGE BITE FORMULA                    2355A70001,
                                                     2355A70002,
BAG UPC: 7 51485 12320 2                            2363A70001,
                                                     2364A70001

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       15 LB    2354A70002,
               LARGE BITE FORMULA                    2355A70002,
                                                     2363A70002
BAG UPC: 7 51485 12321 9

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       6 LB     2354A70003
               LARGE BITE FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12322 6

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       2.2 LB   2354A70004
               LARGE BITE FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12376 9

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2354A70004
               LARGE BITE FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15990 4

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       30 LB    3015A70001
               LARGE BITE FORMULA-BILINGUAL

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12552 7

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       30 LB    2353A70001,
               LARGE BREED FORMULA                   2354A70001

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12704 0

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       15 LB    2354A70002
               LARGE BREED FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12705 7

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2354A70004
               LARGE BREED FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15300 1

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       30 LB    3015A70001
               LARGE BREED FORMULA-BILINGUAL

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12554

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       30 LB    2352A70001,
               SENIOR PLUS 11 PLUS FORMULA           2353A70001

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12326 4

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       15 LB    2352A70002,
               SENIOR PLUS 11 PLUS FORMULA           2353A70002

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12327 1

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       6 LB     2353A70003
               SENIOR PLUS 11 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12328 8

INNOVA        DOG TURKEY AND CHICKEN       4 oz     2353A70004
               SENIOR PLUS 11 PLUS FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15310 0

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     30 LB    2356A70001
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12332 5

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     15 LB    2356A70002
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12333 2

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     6 LB     2356A70003
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12334 9

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     4 oz     2356A70004
               FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15994 2

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     30 LB    2356A70001
               LARGE BREED FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12740 8

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     15 LB    2356A70002
               LARGE BREED FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12741 5

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     6 LB     2356A70003
               LARGE BREED FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 12742 2

INNOVA        PUPPY TURKEY AND CHICKEN     4 oz     2356A70004
               LARGE BREED FORMULA

BAG UPC: 7 51485 15302 5


NEW JERSEY: Sept. 17 Pilot Program Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Notice Company, Inc. on March 14 disclosed that you may be
affected by a class action settlement if you were a Corrections
Officer Recruit Trainees who completed Training Classes 173
through 219 of the Corrections Officer Recruit Training Pilot
Program conducted by the New Jersey Department of Corrections
between 1999 and 2009.  This Action alleges that the New Jersey
Civil Service Commission and the New Jersey Department of
Corrections failed to re-authorize, by way of administrative
rulemaking, the Corrections Officer Recruit Training Pilot Program
after the expiration of one-year, and as a result, the
participants in the Training Program were misclassified as
"student/trainees" holding the rank and title of "Corrections
Officer Recruit Trainees" rather than "employees" holding the rank
and title of "Corrections Officer Recruit."  The Action seeks to
recover back pay and benefits for all members of the Plaintiff
Class who completed the Training Program.  The Defendants deny any
liability.

To serve as Class Counsel, the Court has appointed Robert A.
Fagella, Esq., Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman, One
Riverfront Plaza, Suite 301, Newark, New Jersey 07102, (973) 623-
1822, e-mail: attorneys@zazzali-law.com

Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants will establish a
Common Fund consisting of $4,930,000 to pay members of the
Plaintiff Class, plus a sum, not to exceed $1,055,000, to pay
attorney costs and fees.  The sum of $4,930,000 will be divided
equally among the total number of members of the Plaintiff Class
and will be treated as taxable income to recipients.  It is
anticipated that the settlement payment, before employee payroll
taxes and income withholding are deducted, will be approximately
$1,170 to each individual member of the Plaintiff Class who
submits a Claim Form and Release and a Form W-4.

To make a claim, you must submit a Claim Form and Release, along
with a Form W-4, to the Claims Administrator on or before
September 17, 2013.  You can obtain these documents at
http://www.NJOfficerTrainee.comor by writing to the Claims
Administrator at:

         NJ Officer Trainee Claims
         c/o The Notice Company
         PO Box 455
         Hingham, MA 02043

Persons who fail to submit a Claim Form and Release and Form W-4
by September 17, 2013, will not be entitled to receive any
payment.  If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement,
you must exclude yourself in writing by sending a written request
for exclusion to the Claims Administrator so that it is received
no later than April 22, 2013, or you will not be able to sue, or
continue to sue the Defendants about the legal claims in this
case.  If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the
settlement by filing with the Court, with copies to Class Counsel
and to counsel for Defendants, a notice of intent to appear and/or
object, no later than April 22, 2013.  The Detailed Notice
describes how to exclude yourself or to object.

The Mercer County Superior Court will hold a Final Approval
Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 14, 2013, at 175 S. Broad Street,
Trenton, NJ 08608.  At the hearing, the Court will consider
whether the proposed settlement should be granted final approval
as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the best interests of
the Class as a whole, and whether to approve payment of attorney
fees and costs.  You may attend this hearing if you wish, but you
are not required to do so in order to participate in the
Settlement.

To obtain a Detailed Notice, or to obtain a copy of the Settlement
Agreement, you may visit http://www.NJOfficerTrainee.comor write
to the Claims Administrator at the above address.  You may also
write to Class Counsel.  Please do not contact the Court or
Defendant's Counsel about this case.

Contact: Colin M. Lynch, Esq.
         Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman, P.C.
         Telephone: (973) 623-1822
         E-mail: clynch@zazzali-law.com
         Web site: http://www.NJOfficerTrainee.com


PDC ENERGY: "Schulein" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Schulein v. Petroleum Development
Corp. remains pending in California, according to PDC Energy,
Inc.'s February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 21, 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
certain former partnership unit holders, related to its
partnership repurchases completed by mergers in 2010 and 2011.
The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum
Development Corp.  The complaint primarily alleges a claim that
the proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were
inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty.  On February
10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or in the
alternative to stay.  On June 15, 2012, the Court denied the
motion.  The Court has approved a litigation schedule including a
jury trial in May 2014.

The Company says it has not recorded a liability for claims
pending because it believes it has good legal defenses to the
asserted claims and because the plaintiffs have not specified
damages and it is not possible for management to estimate what, if
any, monetary damages could result from this claim.

Denver, Colorado-based PDC Energy, Inc. -- http://www.pdce.com/
-- (formerly known as Petroleum Development Corporation) is a
domestic independent energy company engaged in the exploration,
development and production of crude oil, natural gas liquids and
natural gas.  Its operations are focused primarily in the liquids-
rich Wattenberg Field of Colorado, including the horizontal
Niobrara and Codell plays, the Utica Shale in Ohio and the
Marcellus Shale development in West Virginia.


PORTELA LAW: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Zara, writing for International Business Times,
reports that in what could be the first-ever unpaid-internship
lawsuit filed on behalf of aspiring attorneys, a New York City law
firm is being accused of acting as an intern mill amid the ongoing
debate over the legality of unpaid internships.

A class-action lawsuit filed on March 13 in U.S. District Court in
New York alleges that the Portela Law Firm, a relatively low-
profile operation located in Manhattan's Washington Heights
neighborhood, violated state and federal labor laws by providing
no educational experience for its unpaid interns and failing to
compensate them for what was essentially grunt work.  The suit was
filed on behalf of Eddie Poff, a recent law-school grad from the
Bronx, and as many as 40 former interns who worked for the firm
from approximately March 2007 to the present.

According to the suit, Mr. Poff and others worked sometimes 40-
plus hours a week stuffing envelopes, cleaning offices and
performing other menial tasks while receiving no academic or
vocational training.  The suit claims the law firm willfully
classified the workers as interns when in fact they would be
considered employees under New York labor laws and the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The suit was filed by Mr. Poff's attorneys, Virginia & Ambinder
and Maurice Pianko, who has been on a crusade of sorts with his
recently launched Intern Justice service, which is recruiting a
network of attorneys to file lawsuits on behalf of unpaid interns.

Controversy surrounding unpaid internships has exploded in recent
years thanks to high-profile cases against such companies as Fox
Searchlight and Hearst Corp., and the PBS host Charlie Rose.
Mr. Pianko, who in an e-mail to IBTimes referred to the Portela
Law Firm as "basically an intern mill," said he thinks the Poff
case is the first ever class-action suit against a law firm on
behalf of unpaid interns.

"This law firm had interns serving as translators, hand-delivering
documents throughout New York City, and putting stamps on
Christmas cards -- just overall nothing close to what an
internship is supposed to be," Mr. Pianko said.  "One of the
interns asked for $2 for a MetroCard to cover the cost of
delivering the firm's documents; he had to wait two hours until
everyone left the office, for the boss to meet with him, and the
boss refused, and advised him to buy an unlimited MetroCard."

Manuel Portela, owner of the Portela Law Firm, is also named in
the suit. Asked to comment, Portela said he was surprised by the
lawsuit and believes the internship in question provided Poff with
an educational benefit.

"The Portela Law Firm provided Mr. Poff exposure to the inner
workings of a litigation practice in New York City," he said in an
e-mailed statement. "This lawsuit comes as a surprise as Mr. Poff
was welcomed into the firm to supplement his academic training
with practical experience. Our office generally denies engaging in
any practices that [are] illegal or protected by the law."

Interns are a common sight in law offices, and internships are
often used as a springboard for aspiring attorneys looking to make
connections and learn the ropes.  David Lat, a lawyer founder of
the legal Web site Above the Law, told IBTimes last month that he
had mostly positive internship experiences that benefited his
career.  Mr. Lat has previously written about the issue for the
New York Times.

However, even Mr. Lat admitted that many unpaid internships may
technically violate the law.  According to the FSLA, the
internship experience should benefit the intern, not the employer.
Moreover, interns may not displace regular employees.  According
to the lawsuit against Portela, the firm would have had to hire
additional employees or require existing staff to work extra hours
had it not been for the interns performing its office tasks.

Mr. Poff is currently the only official plaintiff attached to the
case, but more plaintiffs may join the class action once the case
is further along.  Mr. Poff is seeking to reclaim unpaid regular
wages and overtime wages.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Filing of Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. awaits the filing of a consolidated
complaint in the class action lawsuit pending in California,
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 September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
et al., No. SACv12-1623 DMG (FMOx).  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 26, 2011, and September 21, 2012.  The
complaint generally asserts that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications
other than infantile spasms; the promotion of the sale and use of
Acthar in the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and nephrotic
syndrome, and the Company's outlook and potential market growth
for Acthar.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount
and equitable relief against the defendants.  This lawsuit has
been consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting
similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities
Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx).

On January 4, 2013, the district court issued an order appointing
the West Virginia Investment Management Board and Plumbers &
Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs in the
consolidated securities action.  The Lead Plaintiffs are expected
to file a consolidated amended complaint for the consolidated
securities action in March 2013.

Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.questcor.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the treatment of patients
with serious, difficult-to-treat autoimmune and inflammatory
disorders.  The Company's primary product is H.P. Acthar(R) Gel
(repository corticotropin injection), an injectable drug for the
treatment of 19 indications.  The Company is headquartered in
Anaheim, California.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Antitrust Suit Over CRT Pricing Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd. and its New Jersey-based subsidiary were
released on March 13 from antitrust claims by a class of U.S.
consumers who allege that collusion in the cathode ray tube
manufacturing industry forced them to pay higher prices for
electronics that incorporated CRT products.  U.S. District Judge
Samuel Conti approved a joint stipulation dismissing indirect
purchasers' claims against Samsung and its Samsung Electronics
America Inc. unit.


SEALY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Not Backing Up Warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sealy won't back up its
warranty for sagging mattresses, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


SPECTRUM PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Fusilev
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals Inc. was hit with a putative class action in
Nevada federal court on March 14, accusing the biotechnology
company of misleading investors about the sales potential of
cancer treatment Fusilev, causing them to pay too much for the
company's stock.  According to the plaintiffs, Spectrum
shareholders John Perry and Judith Greenberg, Spectrum had made
overly optimistic sales and revenue projections, despite knowing
that Fusilev -- one of the companies' two main products, alongside
Zevalin, another cancer treatment -- would soon face increased
competition.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Lead Plaintiff Gives Evidence in Bushfire Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Portelli, writing for Herald Sun, reports that the woman
spear-heading a massive class action over the deadliest of the
Black Saturday fires said her family moved from England to their
dream home -- in which her 22-year-old son perished -- for a
different life.

Carol Matthews said she fell in love with the 20-acre St Andrews
property surrounded by pine trees the first time she saw it in
2001.  Mrs. Matthews told the Supreme Court she felt the hairs on
the back of her neck stand up and knew it was the one for her, her
husband David and their two teenage children.

"It was just serene and beautiful.  There was something very
special about that place," Ms. Matthews said.

"It was our forever home."

Mrs. Matthews said she wanted to get the kids away from the
suburban life they had been living in England and decided on a
tree-change.

Black Saturday class action set to begin

Mrs. Matthews said in November 2001 she got the local fire captain
to walk around the Mullers Road property and ensure the family was
fire-ready.  David and their son, Sam, joined the CFA and on
Sunday mornings would "go down and play with fire trucks" and
learn about firefighting, she said.

The former special-needs teacher said the family had slashed
paddocks as a fire-break, had a fire-pump system installed and
prepared a fire plan to stay and defend their home.  She said when
she queried this plan with her husband and son, they would produce
scientific evidence to convince her that a well-prepared home
could defend itself.  Mrs. Matthews said she even once prevented
Sam, a trained CFA volunteer, from fighting a fire in Orbost.

"I just wasn't happy with father and son going on a strike to
fight a bushfire for the first time so I put my foot down," she
said.

"One of them was on standby -- and it wasn't Sam."

The court previously heard that on February 7, 2009, Sam was at
home, constantly monitoring the CFA Web site for updates on the
Kilmore East fire.  He had no idea he was in danger until his home
was engulfed and he was incinerated inside, the court was told
during prosecution openings.

Mrs. Matthews, representing an estimated 10,000 members, claims
energy provider SPI Electricity's faulty equipment ignited the
Kilmore East-King Lake bushfire on Black Saturday.  The fire
killed 119 people, destroyed 1200 homes and caused an estimated
$1 billion worth of damage.

Mrs. Matthews is also suing maintenance contractor Utility
Services Corporation Limited, alleging it was negligent in its
inspection of the powerline, and the Department of Sustainability
and Environment (DSE) for allegedly failing to reduce fuel loads.

The DSE, CFA and Victoria Police also face allegations they failed
to give appropriate warnings about the bushfire.

All the defendants deny the allegations and are fighting the
claims.

Mrs. Matthews was the first prosecution witness called to give
evidence.  She claims she suffered psychological injuries and is
unable to work.

Phil Johnson, writing for 3AW News, reports Mrs. Matthews told the
Supreme Court she had to wait for weeks before authorities handed
over the body of her 22-year-old son Sam who died in the fire at
their property.  Mrs. Matthews said she was initially told it
would take days before her son's body could be removed from the
property and then was told he would be one of the easier bodies to
identify.  She then says she was given too much information to
indicate otherwise.

Mrs. Matthews said she still had flashbacks and was going through
trauma and has suffered an irrational guilt complex for not
protecting her son.  She said she hadn't just lost her son and her
house but also her memories because she now has just one photo of
her daughter and son together.

The class action has returned to Melbourne after spending the past
two days viewing the scene.

SPI says a lightning strike caused the power line to break.

The trial continues.


STANDARD FIRE: Judge Rules Case Can't Be Kept in State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that an
Arkansas man who brought a class action against his insurer cannot
keep the case in state court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
Tuesday.

After a March 2010 hail storm damaged his home in Miller County,
Ark., Greg Knowles hired a general contractor to repair the damage
and then filed a claim with Standard Fire Insurance Co.  Though
Standard Fire was allegedly obligated to pay a charge known as
general contractors' overhead and profit (GCOP), Knowles said it
concealed this obligation.

Knowles filed a class action in April 2011, claiming to represent
hundreds or thousands of similarly situated individuals entitled
to full reimbursement.  Knowles stipulated that the action sought
to recover less than $5 million, but Standard Fire slammed this
framing as a tactic to escape federal jurisdiction.

After it removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, a federal judge in Texarkana
remanded the case to state court.

The court agreed that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million
but found that Knowles could keep the case in state court "by
stipulating at the time the complaint is filed that he will not
seek more than the federal jurisdictional minimum for himself and
the putative class."

The 8th Circuit rejected the insurer's ensuing appeal in a brief
order, leading the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In the ruling,
the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the federal appeals court's
decision, noting simply that stipulation does not make "a critical
difference."

"Our reason is a simple one: Stipulations must be binding,"
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court.  "The stipulation
Knowles proffered to the District Court, however, does not speak
for those he purports to represent.

"That is because a plaintiff who files a proposed class action
cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class
is certified.

"Because his precertification stipulation does not bind anyone but
himself, Knowles has not reduced the value of the putative class
members' claims."

At the time the case was filed, "Knowles lacked the authority to
concede the amount-in-controversy issue for the absent class
members," according to the ruling.  "The federal District Court,
therefore, wrongly concluded that Knowles' precertification
stipulation could overcome its finding that the CAFA
jurisdictional threshold had been met."


STERLING FINANCIAL: Has Reached $3-MM Deal to Settle ERISA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation disclosed in its February 27, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it reached a tentative
$3 million settlement to resolve claims alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling, as well as certain of
Sterling's current and former officers and directors.  The two
complaints were merged in a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Complaint") filed on July 16, 2010 in the same court.  The
Complaint does not name all of the individuals named in the prior
complaints, but it is expected that additional defendants will be
added.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under sections 404 and 405 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), with
respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee Savings and
Investment Plan (the "401(k) Plan") and the FirstBank Northwest
Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") (collectively, the
"Plans").  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their duties by investing assets of the Plans in
Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by
investing such assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew
or should have known that the price of those securities was
inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's
business practices.  The business practices at issue include
alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans; alleged
inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in
nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and
over 90-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for
rising loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking
practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to
withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate
markets.  The putative class periods are October 22, 2007, to the
present for the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007, to
November 14, 2008, for the ESOP class.  The Complaint seeks
damages of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 26, 2012, Sterling received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Labor (the "Department of Labor") containing similar
allegations as those set forth in the Complaint, demanding that
the violations alleged in the Department of Labor's letter be
corrected and notifying Sterling that the Department of Labor may
take legal action in connection with such allegations, including
assessing a civil money penalty.  Failure by Sterling to obtain a
favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the Complaint or
in the letter from the Department of Labor could have a material
adverse effect on Sterling's business, results of operations, and
financial condition.

In January 2013, a tentative settlement was reached, pursuant to
which Sterling agreed to pay $3.0 million to settle the claims.
The settlement is subject to approval by the court and the
Department of Labor.

Spokane, Washington-based Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company, organized under the laws of Washington State in
1992.  The principal subsidiaries of Sterling are Sterling Savings
Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  Subsequent to June 30, 2010, Golf
Savings Bank was merged with and into Sterling Savings Bank, with
the mortgage banking operations of Golf Savings Bank continuing to
operate as a division of Sterling Savings Bank.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss a securities
class action lawsuit in Washington remains pending, according to
the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers.  The court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010.
On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint (the "Complaint").  The Complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sterling's stock during the period from July 23, 2008, to
October 15, 2009.  The Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial
real estate, construction and land development loans, properly
record losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan
losses, thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint.  On
March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court held a hearing
on the motion to dismiss.  The court has not yet issued an order
on the motion, but indicated that it intends to do so in the near
future.

Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims
set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, results of operations and financial
condition.  Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not
considered probable or reasonably estimable in amount.

Spokane, Washington-based Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company, organized under the laws of Washington State in
1992.  The principal subsidiaries of Sterling are Sterling Savings
Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  Subsequent to June 30, 2010, Golf
Savings Bank was merged with and into Sterling Savings Bank, with
the mortgage banking operations of Golf Savings Bank continuing to
operate as a division of Sterling Savings Bank.


VERTEX PHARMA: Lawsuits May Be Filed Over Incivek(R) Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seedol.com reports that the number of individuals who may file
Incivek Lawsuits may be higher than initially expected.  An
Incivek Class Action Lawsuit could result.  Given that Incivek has
only been on the market since 2011, many lawyers Investigating
Incivek Lawsuit cases believed that the number of individuals who
had experienced severe side effects may have been low.  From the
number of case review requests Seedol.com has received as well as
information from other lawyers accepting Incivek Cases, Seedol.com
now believes that the number of potential Incivek Lawsuits that
may be filed is greater than originally anticipated.

            Incivek Side Effects are Potentially Fatal

The Incivek Side Effects which Incivek Lawsuits are based on can
be potentially fatal.  Stevens Johnson Syndrome and other Incivek
side effects result in skin conditions that can be life
threatening in many cases. The skin is the largest organ of the
human body.

In general, most people do not think of a skin condition as being
potentially life threatening however, there are numerous skin
conditions that can in fact be deadly.  Incivek has been linked to
more than one potentially deadly skin disorder.

          Will there be an Incivek Class Action Lawsuit?

It is too early to predict if there will be an Incivek Class
Action Lawsuit.  It is just as likely that there will be an
Incivek Multidistrict Litigation as a Incivek Class Action
Lawsuit.  Although Class Action Lawsuit and Multidistrict
Litigations have much in common, Multidistrict Litigation's are
often more common in cases involving drugs that Class Action
Lawsuits.

Individual Incivek Lawsuits can be filed regardless of whether an
Incivek Class Action Lawsuit or an Incivek Multidistrict
Litigation is formed.  A mass litigation does not have to occur
for any individual injured by Incivek to file an Incivek Lawsuit.

Anyone who was administer Incivek and experienced a severe side
effect should not wait to see if an Incivek Class Action Lawsuit
is formed before consulting with an attorney.  There is a time
limit for filing an Incivek Lawsuit or any other lawsuit.

                           *     *     *

According to a Dec. 19 Safety Announcement posted at the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's Web site, the agency said it received
reports of serious skin reactions, some fatal, in patients taking
the hepatitis C drug Incivek (telaprevir) in combination with the
drugs peginterferon alfa and ribavirin (Incivek combination
treatment).  Significantly, some patients died when they continued
to receive Incivek combination treatment after developing a
worsening, or progressive rash and systemic symptoms (symptoms
affecting the entire body).  As a result, FDA is adding a boxed
warning to the Incivek drug label stating that Incivek combination
treatment must be immediately stopped in patients experiencing a
rash with systemic symptoms or a progressive severe rash.

The FDA also said Incivek's manufacturer, Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, agreed at the time of marketing approval to
investigate, through genetic analysis, the factors associated with
serious skin reactions following Incivek combination treatment.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether such
serious skin reactions may be linked to the genetic makeup of the
patient. FDA will continue to communicate to health professionals
and the public any relevant information that becomes available
about the risk of serious skin reactions associated with Incivek
use.


VIROPHARMA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
ViroPharma Incorporated continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania, 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 May 17, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
naming as defendants ViroPharma Incorporated and Vincent J.
Milano.  The complaint alleges, among other things, possible
securities laws violations by the defendants in connection with
certain statements made by the defendants related to the Company's
Vancocin product.  On October 19, 2012, the complaint was amended
to include additional officers of the Company as named defendants
and allege additional information as the basis for the claim.  The
defendants believe that the allegations in the class action
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

ViroPharma Incorporated -- http://www.viropharma.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in September 1994 and its executive
offices are located in Exton, Pennsylvania.  ViroPharma is an
international biotechnology company dedicated to the development
and commercialization of novel solutions for physician specialists
to address unmet medical needs of patients living with diseases
that have few if any clinical therapeutic options including
therapeutics for rare and orphan diseases.


WATKINS SECURITY: Judge Rejects Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Watkins Security Agency and
its D.C. affiliate cannot dismiss a class action alleging that
they failed to compensate school security guards who worked
through lunch breaks, a federal judge ruled.


WATTS WATER: Continues to Defend Faulty Toilet Connectors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit alleging failure of
toilet connectors, 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 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies, Inc. were named as
defendants in a putative nationwide class action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged
failure of toilet connectors.  The complaint seeks among other
items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company says it is unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for the matter in which damages have not been
specified because: (i) the proceedings are in the early stages;
(ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being
certified or the ultimate size of the class; (iii) there is
uncertainty as to pending motions; (iv) there are significant
factual issues to be resolved; and (v) there are novel legal
issues presented.  However, based on information currently known
to the Company, it does not believe that these proceedings will
have a material effect on its financial position, results of
operations, cash flows or liquidity.

Headquartered in North Andover, Massachusetts, Watts Water
Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.wattswater.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in 1985 and the parent company of Watts
Regulator Co.  Watts Regulator was founded by Joseph E. Watts in
1874 in Lawrence, Massachusetts.  Watts Regulator started as a
small machine shop supplying parts to the New England textile
mills of the 19th century and grew into a global manufacturer of
products and systems focused on the control, conservation and
quality of water and the comfort and safety of the people using
it.


* Attorneys Present Class Action Concerns to U.S. House for Reform
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Blazer, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, reports that
as loyal readers of the Monitor know, class action litigation has
been on Weil, Gotshal & Manges' radar in a major way given all the
attention it has received in recent years, from Daubert concerns
to standing to issues of similarity.  Understanding the changes to
class action processes and procedures is crucial to vigilantly
defending against these type of lawsuits, particularly for large
corporations that are most often the targets of such suits.

In addition to the procedural transformations brought about by the
judicial system, some interested parties are seeking changes to
address the legal abuses that allegedly plague class action
lawsuits.  Recently, attorneys testified before a U.S. House of
Representatives subcommittee seeking significant class action
reforms.  The House Judiciary's Constitution and Civil Justice
subcommittee had asked lawyers affiliated with class actions,
small business, and legal reform interests to speak out on the
kinds of litigation abuses they believe warrant legislative
reform.

One issue that took center stage was that of cy pres settlements,
which are unclaimed class action funds earmarked for third-party
charities (for background on potential issues relating to cy pres
settlements).  Reform is called for in this area due to the
concern that some attorneys may direct the cy pres money to their
favorite charities, then take a 25 to 40 percent commission off
the amount as part of their attorney's fees.  The possibility of
such "double-dipping" may give class action attorneys an incentive
to break professional duties to clients by making it difficult for
class members to recover (i.e. by creating lengthy and confusing
claim forms).

Essentially, reformists claim cy pres settlements are a way for
lawyers to justify their expensive fees without having to craft
settlements that deliver any direct benefit to the individuals
actually injured by the defendant's alleged misconduct.  On the
flipside, defenders of cy pres settlements claim that eliminating
cy pres settlements is just another tactic used by corporations to
weaken the nation's class action system.  In other words, they
say, corporations ultimately don't want to pay class action
settlements regardless of their form.

Other groups presented additional areas of potential reform to the
subcommittee, such as the discovery abuses they claim goes on in
large-scale litigations.  The groups said that practices such as
misleading responses to discovery requests and hiding tens of
thousands of documents under the attorney-client privilege must be
addressed now before they become worse.

According to the testimony before the subcommittee, these and
other types of class action abuses particularly harm small
business owners who find themselves facing lawsuits without in-
house counsel to advise them.  And, of course, small businesses
must then spend an extraordinary amount of resources (relative to
their total assets) to defend themselves.

Lastly, some attorneys directed the subcommittee to consider the
phenomenon of contingency fee contracts between state attorneys
general and private counsel who are brought on to assist with
litigation.  One view is that such arrangements may create an
"unseemly" liaison between public and private entities.  Other
attorneys, however, claim that such arrangements are necessary to
help understaffed AG's offices protect consumers.

If passed, these reforms could significantly contribute to the
ever-changing class action litigation landscape, and could have a
major impact on the way these cases are tried.


                             *********

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  * * *