CAR_Public/130327.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 61

                             Headlines



AQUA LUNG: Recalls 110T Buoyancy Compensators Over Drowning Risk
AT&T INC: Consumers Seek U-Verse Class Action Trial
BABY PRODUCTS: Cozen O'Connor Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
CHINESE DAILY: Littler Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
CITIBANK NA: Accord in Heloc Litigation Gets Final Court Approval

CITIGROUP INC: In-House Lawyers Challenge $100MM Attorney Fees
CITIGROUP INC: Settles Disclosure Class Action for $730 Million
COPANO ENERGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Texas
DAESANG AMERICA: Recalls Mixed Soy Bean Paste Over Peanut Content
DENDREON CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $40 Million

DR HORTON: Plaza Grande Residents File Class Action
ERIE INDEMNITY: Wants $300-Mil. Suit to Stay in Federal Court
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Refuses to Consider Class Action Appeal
JONES NATURAL: Recalls Woofers Dog Treats Due to Salmonella Risk
LA PREFERIDA: Recalls 56,808 Cans of Whole Pinto Beans

LINKEDIN: Alexander Holburn Discusses Ruling in Data Breach Suit
MAGURA USA: Recalls 2,800 Bicycle Hydraulic Disc Brakes
MONTREAL: Davies Ward Discusses Quebec Court of Appeal Ruling
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Disputes Athletes' Class Action Certification
NETFLIX INC: Gets Final OK of Settlement in Consumer Privacy Suit

NEW CHAPTER: Recalls Probiotic Elderberry Dietary Supplements
NEW YORK CITY: Stop-and-Frisk Class Action Trial Begins
ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED: Littler Discusses EEOC Sanction
PARADISE CITY: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
PETRO-CANADA: McMillan Discusses Quebec Court of Appeal Ruling

TC ELECTRONIC: Recalls 388 Units of Bass Guitar Amplifiers
THELADDERS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Job Postings
UNITED HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Mental Health Coverage
VERIZON WIRELESS: Ex-Employee Files Overtime Class Action
W HOLDING: June 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

YUBA BICYCLES: Recalls 1,000 Mundo Cargo Bikes Due to Injury Risk

* Class Action on "Excessive Bank Fees" Faces Challenges
* India's Companies Bill 2012 Allows Investor Class Actions


                             *********


AQUA LUNG: Recalls 110T Buoyancy Compensators Over Drowning Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Aqua Lung America, of Vista, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 110,000 Aqua Lung buoyancy compensators with
SureLock II weight pocket handles.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rubber handles can detach as divers are trying to remove the
weight pockets to rise to the surface in an emergency.  This poses
a drowning hazard.

Aqua Lung is aware of 236 reports of handles detaching from the
weight pockets.  There are no reported injuries.

This recall involves all Aqua Lung buoyancy compensators with
SureLock II rubber handles attached to weight pockets, including
the following models: Axiom, Axiom i3, Balance, Black Diamond,
Dimension, Libra, Lotus, Pearl, Pearl i3, Pro LT, Pro QD, Pro QDi3
and Zuma buoyancy compensators.  The SureLock II handles are gray
rubber and measure about 2 inches tall by 4 inches wide.  The
buoyancy compensator's model name is embroidered on the inside
back pad or the weight pocket's right lobe.  "SureLock" is molded
into the back of the weight pocket.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/iB9AgP

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Mexico, and
sold at sporting goods and scuba diving stores nationwide from
September 2008 through September 2012 for between $460 and $700
for the buoyancy compensator with the weight pockets.

Consumers should stop using the recalled buoyancy compensators and
return the two weight pockets to an authorized Aqua Lung dealer to
receive a free inspection and free replacement for recalled weight
pocket handles.  Aqua Lung may be reached toll-free at (855) 355-
7170 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday or online at http://www.aqualung.com/and click on Recall
Notice for more information.


AT&T INC: Consumers Seek U-Verse Class Action Trial
---------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
consumers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up their
putative class action accusing AT&T Inc. of fraud over its
allegedly defective U-verse phone, Internet and television
service, saying their right to a jury trial was trampled when the
case was axed in favor of an arbitration clause.  In their March
11 petition for a writ of certiorari, the four plaintiffs argued
that the Tenth Circuit had "brushed aside" competent evidence
about AT&T's business practices.


BABY PRODUCTS: Cozen O'Connor Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald F. Wick, Esq. at Cozen O'Connor reports that late last
year, the Ninth Circuit affirmed an expansive use of cy pres
remedies in class action settlements, refusing to second-guess
either the parties' selection of a cy pres recipient or the
district court's determination that the use of a cy pres remedy
was appropriate.  Last month, however, the Third Circuit set aside
a settlement containing a cy pres remedy, holding that the
district court based its approval of the settlement on an
incomplete record.

In In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, the district court
approved a $35.5 million settlement of consolidated antitrust
class actions brought against several toy manufacturers and
retailers.  The settlement provided that after the payment of all
claims and attorneys' fees and costs, all remaining funds would go
to one or more charitable organizations proposed by the parties
and selected by the court for a purpose underlying the interests
of the class -- i.e., cy pres recipients.

Although the parties apparently contemplated that the cy pres
remedy would account for a relatively small portion of the total
settlement, the opposite proved to be the case.  About $14 million
was to go to attorneys' fees, and of the remainder, it was
projected that only about $3 million would be distributed to
individual claimants, leaving a whopping $18.5 million for cy pres
distribution.

The Third Circuit, holding for the first time that a cy pres
remedy can be a permissible component of a class action
settlement, nevertheless overturned the district court's approval.
In doing so, the panel emphasized that direct distributions to the
class are preferred to cy pres distributions, and held that the
degree of direct benefit to the class is a necessary inquiry in
evaluating a settlement.

The basis for the court's reversal, however, was not that the cy
pres distribution was necessarily too high, but that the district
court lacked a sufficient factual basis for approval --
particularly with respect to the allocation of the funds.  At the
time the district court conducted its fairness hearing, the
deadline for claim submissions had not yet passed, and the
district court apparently overestimated the likely volume of
claims.  Following the conclusion of the claims period, the
parties did not provide the actual allocation figures to the
district court, and the district court failed to fulfill its
obligation to "affirmatively seek out such information."

Interestingly, even the district court's estimate of the likely
payments to class members, made before the claims deadline passed,
was only $8.1 million at most -- which still would have left more
than $13 million for cy pres recipients.  Thus, the district court
approved the settlement with the expectation that once attorneys'
fees and costs were deducted, a substantial majority of the
portion designated for the class would go to cy pres recipients
rather than class members.  Yet if the district court's
information had proven correct, it is hard to imagine that the
Third Circuit have been satisfied with this breakdown.

The key to the opinion may lie in another piece of information the
district court lacked.  Under the settlement, claimants who
provided proof of purchase were eligible to receive a refund of 20
percent of their purchase price.  Claimants who did not provide
proof of purchase were eligible to receive an award of $5.  In the
event settlement funds remained after payment of these claims,
claimants who submitted the proof of purchase and received the 20
percent refund would obtain pro rata enhancements from the
remainder, up to a maximum of three times the original award.  The
vast majority of claimants, however, fell into the $5 category and
were not subject to an enhancement from the remainder.

In approving the settlement, the district court based its
acceptance of the $5 cap on compensation for claimants without
proof of purchase in part on a determination that the standard of
proof required to receive the higher award was "fairly low."  The
Third Circuit, however, held that the disproportionately large
number of claimants who did not submit proof of purchase "cast[]
doubt on this assumption."  In remanding, the court noted that the
parties might wish to consider either increasing the $5 payment or
lowering the evidentiary bar for receiving the higher award.

Despite taking great pains to couch its opinion in terms of the
information considered by the district court, the Third Circuit
appears to have to imposed substantive requirements on settlements
containing cy pres awards.  The court's obvious concern about the
percentage of the settlement going to cy pres recipients, even
though the district court fully expected the percentage to be
significant based on the information to it available at the time,
is one example.  The panel's open suggestion of potential
permissible modifications to the settlement agreement, while
expressed in terms of voluntary action by the parties and the
district court's role in evaluating the fairness of any modified
settlement, all but orders the parties to revise the payout
parameters.

Officially, Baby Products holds that there is no numerical
requirement regarding the distribution of class action settlement
proceeds between class members and cy pres recipients.
Unofficially, however, practitioners in the Third Circuit can
assume that any settlement including a cy pres award had better
ensure that class members receive at least as much as cy pres, and
probably substantially more.


CHINESE DAILY: Littler Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Ciralsky, Esq. -- jciralsky@littler.com -- and Sophia
Behnia, Esq., at Littler report that in Wang v. Chinese Daily
News, Inc., on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Supreme Court's decision in
Dukes v. Wal-Mart to reverse and remand a federal district court
decision certifying a California state wage law class action.
Like Dukes, Wang has had a somewhat protracted history.  Following
certification as an FLSA collective action, and prior to the
Supreme Court's decision in Dukes, the district court certified
the plaintiffs' state wage law claims as a class action under Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or, in the
alternative, under Rule 23(b)(3). Following a 16-day jury trial,
the plaintiffs were awarded over $2.5 million.  The company
appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  On appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court post-Dukes, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit
decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision
in Dukes.

On remand, the plaintiffs conceded that, based on Dukes, class
certification of their claim for monetary damages under Rule
23(b)(2) could not stand.  Accordingly, the court reversed its
decision on that issue and focused its analysis on the commonality
standards for class certification under Rule 23(a) and the
requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) that common questions predominate
over individual issues.

Noting that the district court had determined commonality under
Rule 23(a) based solely on the allegations in the complaint, the
Ninth Circuit remanded and asked the district court to determine
whether the claims of the proposed class "depend upon a common
contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide
resolution -- which means that determination of its truth or
falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
each one of the claims in one stroke," as required by Dukes.  The
court emphasized that the plaintiffs "must show significant proof"
that the company operated under a general policy of violating
California labor laws.

As to the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth
Circuit held that the district court erred by basing its
conclusion that common questions predominated on the fact that the
employer had a uniform policy of classifying all reporters and
account executives as exempt employees.  The Ninth Circuit noted
that it previously held in In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Overtime Pay Litigation that "a presumption that class
certification is proper when an employer's internal exemption
policies are applied uniformly to the employees .  .  . disregards
the existence of other potential individual issues that may make
class treatment difficult if not impossible."

The Ninth Circuit also asked the district court to reconsider
certification of the plaintiffs' meal break claim in light of the
California Supreme Court's recent opinion in Brinker Restaurant
Corporation v. Superior Court, in which the court held that an
employer is obligated to "relieve its employee of all duty for an
uninterrupted 30-minute period," but need not actually ensure that
its employees take meal breaks.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Ninth Circuit
emphasized the U.S. Supreme Court's disapproval of "Trial by
Formula," in which damages are determined for a sample set of
class members and then applied by extrapolation to the rest of the
class "without further individualized proceedings."  Echoing
Dukes, the court held that employers are entitled not only to
"individualized determinations of each employee's eligibility" for
monetary relief, but also are "entitled to litigate any individual
affirmative defenses they may have to class members' claims."

This case is significant for employers facing state wage law class
actions because, in addition to confirming the applicability of
Dukes to wage-and-hour cases, it strongly suggests that class
actions may not be the appropriate means of adjudicating
misclassification, meal and rest break, or other claims in which
individualized issues, such as an employee's actual duties or the
manner in which a particular pay practice is administered,
predominate.


CITIBANK NA: Accord in Heloc Litigation Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued an order granting final
approval of a settlement in IN RE CITIBANK HELOC REDUCTION
LITIGATION, No. 09-CV-0350-MMC, (N.D. Cal.).  The Court finds that
the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is
in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

The Court granted preliminarily approval of the Settlement between
Class Representatives David Levin, Loren S. Siegel, Gary Cohen,
Marie Cohen, Mark Winkler and Jennie Lapointe, individually and as
representatives of the "Settlement Class", on the one hand, and
Citibank, N.A., in November 2012.

The Agreement provides for payment of up to $1,214,000 to Class
Counsel for Attorneys' Fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
prosecution of the Action.  Payment to Class Counsel of $1,214,000
is approved as reasonable compensation for Class Counsel's work,
which has resulted in a substantial benefit to the Settlement
Class and created Settlement Benefits that will be provided to
Settlement Class Members.  No other Attorneys' Fees, expenses, or
costs will be paid by the Defendant.

The Agreement provides for an incentive payment of up to $36,000
to the Class Representatives in settlement of their claims and in
recognition of their services.  A payment of $30,000 for the Class
Representatives collectively, to be divided in six equal parts to
David Levin, Loren S. Siegel, Gary Cohen, Marie Cohen, Mark
Winkler, and Jennie Lapointe, is approved as fair and reasonable.
The Class Representatives will not be entitled to any other
payment under the Agreement.

Objections that were filed, timely or otherwise, were overruled.

The Class Representatives and Class members released Citibank and
each and every Released Party from all Released Claims as defined
in the Settlement Agreement.

A total of 42 Class members requested exclusion from the
Settlement Agreement.

Sean P. Reis, Esq. -- sreis@edelson.com --  of EDELSON MCGUIRE,
LLP, in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, Jay Edelson, Esq. --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. --
swoodrow@edelson.com -- Evan Meyers, Esq. -- emeyers@edelson.com
-- of EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC, in Chicago, Illinois represent the
Plaintiffs.

A copy of the District Court's March 18, 2013 Final Approval Order
is available at http://is.gd/Cp3sDrfrom Leagle.com.


CITIGROUP INC: In-House Lawyers Challenge $100MM Attorney Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports a prominent association
of in-house lawyers has voiced its objection to a $100 million fee
request in a securities class action against Citigroup Inc. that
settled for $590 million.

The Association of Corporate Counsel sent a friend-of-the-court
letter on March 15 to the Manhattan federal judge who is weighing
whether to approve the fee.

The association backed arguments by Ted Frank, a well-known class
action reform activist who has objected to the fee request, which
he says is based on excessive rates for contract attorneys hired
for document review work.

"Even without the fee-multiplier, the plaintiffs lawyers request
hundreds of dollars per hour for many individual contract
lawyers," Amar Sarwal, chief legal strategist at ACC, wrote in the
letter.  "But almost no law firms today charge such high rates for
contract lawyers."

The letter, which is not in the docket but was provided to
Reuters, marks the first time the ACC has objected to fees in a
class action, Mr. Sarwal said in an interview.  He said the
objection was part of the ACC's broader efforts since the economic
downturn to advocate for value-based fee arrangements.

"We've been looking for opportunity in courts to weigh in, so this
was a pretty juicy target," he said.

The lawsuit, filed in 2007, accused Citigroup of hiding billions
of dollars in toxic mortgage assets.  The bank agreed to settle
the case last year.

Kirby McInerney, the lead plaintiffs' counsel, subsequently
applied for almost $100 million in fees.

Mr. Frank, who was also a Citigroup shareholder, objected to the
fee as excessive, taking issue with the $350-to-$550-an-hour rates
charged by temporary contract attorneys staffing the case as above
the market rate for such work.

In a brief filed on March 15, Mr. Frank said temporary attorneys
are typically billed to corporate clients at under $100 an hour.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein on March 1 ordered Kirby
McInerney to submit details about its staff and contract
attorneys, including the numbers of how many staffed the case and
their time records and expenses.

The fee is contingent, but, as is typical in investor class
actions, it is cross-checked against the hours the plaintiffs'
attorneys say they would have billed.

In the brief Frank said $17 million of the time entries have no
description except a vague "document review" notation.  As much as
30 percent of the hours attributed to all the lawyers on the case
was for after they had agreed to the settlement in May 2012, he
wrote.

The ACC, in its letter, said the "plaintiffs' fee request ignores
these marketplace realities."

The plaintiffs' lawyers either paid their contract lawyers more
than the market rate or "padded the actual rates with the sort of
unjustifiable profit margins that paying clients would refuse."

"Either way, there is no basis in the law or in the market to
justify the fee request for contract lawyers," Sarwal wrote.

Mr. Frank in an e-mail on March 15 said he hadn't yet read the
ACC's letter, but said it "has smart attorneys working for it, and
I'd wager they wrote something that will be helpful to the court's
analysis."

Ira Press, a partner with Kirby McInerney handling the case, did
not respond to requests for comment.

The case is In re Citigroup Inc Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 07-09901.

For plaintiffs: Ira Press -- ipress@kmllp.com -- and Peter Linden
-- plinden@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney.

For Citigroup: Brad Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Richard Rosen
rrosen@paulweiss.com -- and Susanna Buergel --
sbuergel@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison.

For the objector: Ted Frank, Center for Class Action Fairness.


CITIGROUP INC: Settles Disclosure Class Action for $730 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Citigroup said on March 18 that it had agreed
to pay $730 million to settle a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
investors who said they were misled by the company's disclosures.
Investors who bought the bank's debt and preferred stock from 2006
to 2008 contended in their suit that there were misstatements and
omissions in the bank's disclosures, Citigroup said in a statement
announcing the proposed settlement.

The investors accused the bank of understating loss reserves for
its high-risk residential mortgage loans and falsely stating that
risky assets were of high credit quality, according to Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, a law firm that represented pension
funds and other investors in the case.

The bank denied the accusations and said it was entering into the
settlement to end the litigation.  It said the settlement would be
covered by existing litigation reserves.  "This settlement is
another significant step toward resolving our exposure to claims
arising from the financial crisis," the bank said in its
statement.

The class action was filed on behalf of investors who bought 48
offerings of preferred stock and bonds, the law firm said.  The
proposed settlement, which will be reviewed by Judge Sidney H.
Stein in Federal District Court in Manhattan, comes after more
than four years of litigation.

According to The Australian Associated Press, the plaintiffs in
the case included the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Systems and the
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund.

The settlement must be approved by a US District Court.


COPANO ENERGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 18
disclosed that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit with
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on February 28, 2013, in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on
behalf of the unitholders of Copano Energy, L.L.C. against Copano
and its board of directors for, among other things, violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Copano by
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.

The complaint arises out of a January 29, 2013 press release
announcing that Copano had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Kinder Morgan, pursuant to which Copano unitholders
would receive .4563 Kinder Morgan units for each unit of Copano
they own.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty and due care owed to Copano unitholders.  The complaint
further alleges that, in an attempt to secure unitholder approval
of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a materially
false and misleading Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or
misrepresented information is believed to be material to Copano
unitholders' ability to make an informed decision whether or not
to approve the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all other similarly situated unitholders of Copano
as of January 29, 2013.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Arroyo LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from March 18, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our Web site, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com.   Any member of the 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.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation,
represents individual and institutional investors in securities
class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.  Robbins
Arroyo LLP has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of
value for themselves and the companies in which they have
invested.

Contact: Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Web site: http://www.robbinsarroyo.com


DAESANG AMERICA: Recalls Mixed Soy Bean Paste Over Peanut Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daesang America Inc., at One University Plaza, Suite 603, in
Hackensack, New Jersey, is recalling its 500 gram (17.64 Ounce)
packages of Sesame and Garlic flavored Mixed Soy Bean Paste
because they may contain undeclared peanuts.  People who have
allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Mixed Soy Bean Paste (Sesame & Garlic) were
distributed nationwide in retail stores and through online orders.

The product comes in a 500 gram (17.64 ounce), Sage Green plastic
package marked with Sunchang Ssamjang (Sesame & Garlic Seasoned
Bean Paste) on the top & front of the package.  All dates of
expiration fall under this recall coverage for this particular
item.  It is a product of Korea and was distributed from June 2012
- February 2013.  UPC for the product is 880152435671.

Neither severe illnesses nor injury have been reported to date in
connection with this problem.  But minor allergy reaction to
peanut was reported.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of peanuts in English on ingredient list.

Production of the product has been suspended until FDA and the
companies are certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 500 gram (17.64 ounce) packages of
Mixed Soy Bean Paste are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund if any consumer might have risk of
allergic reaction from this undeclared peanut.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 201-488-4010.  Recall
helpline will be available from Monday - Friday (9:30 a.m. - 5:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time).


DENDREON CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $40 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street Pit reports that Dendreon Corp. on March 18 disclosed
that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action litigation pending against it in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

Upon final approval, the settlement will resolve the claims
asserted against all defendants in the previously disclosed
putative securities class action.  The lawsuit is currently
pending against the Company and three current and former executive
officers.

In the lawsuit, captioned In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR., an investor,
purporting to represent a class consisting of persons who
purchased Dendreon common stock between April 29, 2010 and
August 3, 2011, sought unspecified damages from Dendreon and three
current and former officers of the Company for allegedly false or
misleading statements concerning the company, its finances,
business operations and prospects with a focus on the market
launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician
adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE.

The terms agreed upon by the parties contemplates a settlement
payment of $40 million, $38 million of which will be funded by
Dendreon's insurers.  Dendreon and the individual defendants
continue to deny that any statements they made were false or
misleading.

"We are pleased to put this matter behind us," said Christine
Mikail, Executive Vice President, Corporate Development, General
Counsel and Secretary of Dendreon.  "Upon final approval of this
settlement, Dendreon will have eliminated the potential
distraction from ongoing class action litigation that began in
2011."

According to The Seattle Times, Dendreon said the company and the
three executives named in the suit continue to deny the
allegations.

Dendreon in 2010 introduced the first treatment using a new
approach of priming the patient's own immune system to combat a
specific cancer.

But its forecasts of hitting $350 million in sales the following
year fell woefully short, and Dendreon since then has sharply cut
its staff, sold one of its three manufacturing plants, and given
up high-profile office space at downtown's Russell Investments
Center.  It recently reported that its accumulated deficit since
inception reached $1.95?billion at year-end.


DR HORTON: Plaza Grande Residents File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Bryan Little, writing for CherryHillPatch, reports that residents
are suing, claiming builder D.R. Horton has failed to deliver
promised amenities at the complex.  A suit that started out as
four local condo owners against a developer has morphed into a
class action, after a state Superior Court judge certified the
class on March 15.

A group of residents of the Plaza Grande, a 55-and-older community
in the Garden State Park redevelopment area, originally filed at
the end of 2011, but Superior Court Judge Deborah Silverman Katz
certified a class made up of all condo owners in the complex who
originally purchased from developer D.R. Horton.  The suit came
about because of what owners say was a failure to make good on
promised amenities, including a clubhouse and both indoor and
outdoor pools.

In the suit, residents have demanded D.R. Horton turn over control
of the condo board to the local owners, unless the developer
resumes construction on the complex, which is shown as having 25
buildings in at least one set of plans for the entire racetrack
redevelopment.  Just four buildings have been built.

In granting the class action, the court assigned attorney Stephen
P. DeNittis, Esq. of Marlton to represent the residents.
Mr. DeNittis called the certification an early victory for the
residents.

"It means that it is not simply a few residents who are suing D.R.
Horton, but all Plaza Grande condo owners who were original
purchasers," he said in a statement.

Beyond just granting the class action, the court squelched a
motion by D.R. Horton attorneys for summary judgment and a
dismissal.

"Eight years ago, D.R. Horton made written promises to these
people which have not been kept," Mr. DeNittis said.  "[Friday's]
rulings mean that all Plaza Grande condo owners who were original
purchasers have now banded together and are collectively asking
the court to order D.R. Horton to keep those promises."


ERIE INDEMNITY: Wants $300-Mil. Suit to Stay in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a complaint alleging
that Erie Indemnity Co. bilked members of an unincorporated
insurance exchange out of $300 million should not be heard in
state court because it seeks relief on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs, an attorney for the company told the Third Circuit on
March 18.  In oral arguments before a three-judge panel in
Philadelphia, Steven Feirson, an attorney with Dechert LLP
representing Erie Indemnity, said the Third Circuit should
overturn a lower court's decision remanding Erie Insurance
Exchange's suit to state court.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Refuses to Consider Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, report
that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. suffered a defeat on March 18 as the
U.S. Supreme Court let stand a decision forcing it to defend
against claims it misled investors about mortgage securities that
lost value during the 2008 financial crisis.  Without comment, the
court refused to consider Goldman's appeal of a September 2012
decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

That court's action lets the NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund,
which owned some mortgage-backed certificates underwritten by
Goldman, sue on behalf of investors in certificates it did not
own, but that were backed by mortgages from the same lenders.

Goldman and other banks have faced thousands of lawsuits by
investors seeking to recoup losses on mortgage securities.

The bank has said that letting the 2nd Circuit decision stand
could cost Wall Street tens of billions of dollars.

Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment.

Darren Robbins, a partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
representing the plaintiffs, said about 10 cases within the 2nd
Circuit are affected by the March 18 order, including one against
JPMorgan Chase & Co that his firm is handling.  He said the
Goldman case will now proceed toward a possible trial. The NECA-
IBEW fund is based in Decatur, Illinois.

"These mortgage-backed securities are ground zero for the mortgage
meltdown," Robbins said in a phone interview.  "Our clients are
certainly very pleased with the outcome.  It reiterates the common
sense test endorsed by the 2nd Circuit.  It's a good day for
pension funds and investors, for sure."

Fred Isquith -- isquith@whafh.com -- a class action and securities
litigation specialist who is not involved in the Goldman case,
said the March 18 order is important given other pending mortgage
securities cases but that the fallout may be contained.

"If you expand the number of securities, you expand the amount of
potential damages," said Mr. Isquith, a partner at Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.  "How much more? I'm willing to
bet dollars to donuts that when it comes down to dealing with
actual damages, it will be less than they argued."

In the Goldman case, the issue was whether the NECA-IBEW fund, an
electrical workers' union pension plan that bought certificates
from two of 17 trusts under a 2007 registration statement, could
sue on behalf of investors in all 17 offerings.

The 2nd Circuit let the fund sue over seven of the offerings: the
two it invested in, plus five others that also contained loans
from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, later part of Capital One
Financial Corp., and Wells Fargo & Co.  It said the other 10
offerings were too different.

Theodore Olson -- tolson@gibsondunn.com -- a partner at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher representing Goldman, warned in court papers that
letting the 2nd Circuit decision stand "will effectively increase
by tens of billions of dollars the potential liability that
financial institutions face in this and similar class actions."

Goldman said the case also merited review because it conflicted
with a decision by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals involving Japan's Nomura Holdings Inc.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported Goldman, saying they feared
"vexatious, abusive litigation and coercive multimillion or
billion dollar settlements to the detriment of the nation's
economy."

In the JPMorgan case, the largest U.S. bank faces a lawsuit led by
the Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California
encompassing 10 mortgage offerings that they did not purchase.

JPMorgan spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli declined to comment.

The Goldman case is Goldman Sachs & Co et al v. NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-528.

The JPMorgan case, which names a different plaintiff, is Fort
Worth Employees' Retirement Fund et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co
et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.
09-03701.


JONES NATURAL: Recalls Woofers Dog Treats Due to Salmonella Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Natural Chews Co. of Rockford, Illinois, is recalling 245
boxes of Woofers (beef patties) because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella.  Salmonella can affect animals and
there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products.
People handling dry pet food and/or treats can become infected
with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed
their hands after having contact with the chews 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.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by
Colorado Department of Agriculture Feed Program which revealed
that the finished products contained the bacteria.

The Jones Natural Chews Woofers were distributed in AZ, CA, CO,
PA, VA, and WI.  They were shipped to distributors and retailers
between November 1, 2012, and November 12, 2012, where they were
available for purchase.

   * Jones Natural Chews Co Woofers (beef patties) bulk 50 count
     box, Item UPC 741956008169, Lot 2962GPS - Best By 10/22/15
     and Lot 2892PAL - Best By 10/15/15

***Woofers in bulk 50 count box may be sold individually***

   * Jones Natural Chews Co Woofers (beef patties) 1 pack
     shrink-wrap, 50 count box, Item UPC 741956008657, Lot 3102,
     Best By 11/05/15.

   * Jones Natural Chews Co Woofers (beef patties) 1 pack
     shrink-wrap, 50 count box, Item UPC 741956008183, Lot
     2892BF - Best By 10/15/15, Lot 2962PWV - Best By 10/22/15,
     Lot 2962ASC - Best By 10/22/15, and Lot 3032ASL - Best By
     10/29/15.

   * Jones Natural Chews Co Woofers (beef patties) 2 pack
     shrink-wrap, 25ct box, item UPC 741956008190, Lot 2962ASC
     - Best By 10/22/15 and Lot 3032ASL - Best By 10/29/15.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased any of these woofers are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-877-481-2663, Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Central Standard Time.


LA PREFERIDA: Recalls 56,808 Cans of Whole Pinto Beans
------------------------------------------------------
La Preferida, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 4,734 cases (56,808
cans) of La Preferida Whole Pinto Beans 29 oz. (Water & Salt).
Can Code: PINTO LP, BEST BY 01/03/2015, "Time" 3003.  The
manufacturer's preliminary inspection indicates 420 cans may not
have been fully processed, which could result in product
contamination by spoilage organisms or by pathogens, which could
lead to illness if consumed.  To date, there have been no reported
injuries or adverse events associated with the consumption of this
product.

These products were distributed for retail sale nationwide from
January 7, 2013, thru February 6, 2013.  The recalled product can
be identified as follows:

   * La Preferida Whole Pinto Beans 29 oz. (Water & Salt)

Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm344732.htm

Product with this code, should be returned to your local grocery
store to receive a full refund.

For consumer questions, please call 1-866-251-8268.

Thank you for your full cooperation and immediate attention in
this matter.  This voluntary recall is being made with the
knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration.


LINKEDIN: Alexander Holburn Discusses Ruling in Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Vanderburgh Alexander, Esq., at Alexander Holburn Beaudin
+ Lang LLP, reports that on March 5, 2013 the California District
Court dismissed a proposed class action against LinkedIn arising
from hackers infiltrating LinkedIn's computer system.

In June 2012 hackers infiltrated LinkedIn's computer system and
posted approximately 6.5 million user passwords on the Internet.
Following the breach, LinkedIn increased the security of its
password encryption method from a "hashed" format, in which the
passwords were converted into an unreadable encrypted format, by
adding the additional step of "salting", in which random values
were added to the passwords before they were "hashed".  A class
action was filed in November 2012 on behalf of LinkedIn's Premium
Account holders, on the grounds that they had paid a fee for
LinkedIn services which included a promise by LinkedIn that their
information would be secured in accordance with industry standard
protocols and technology.  The Plaintiffs based their claim in
contract and in negligence.  LinkedIn filed a preliminary motion
to dismiss the class action on the grounds that the Complaint
filed by the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient injury to
establish the Plaintiffs' standing to advance the claim in U.S.
Federal Court.  The Court granted LinkedIn's motion and identified
a number of deficiencies in the proposed class action.

First, the Plaintiffs did not allege in the Complaint that they
actually paid for the security services they alleged were not
provided.  The LinkedIn User agreement and Privacy Policy for the
Premium Account holders was the same as for the non-paying basic
membership.  The Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the alleged
promise of a particular level of security was part of the contract
and therefore could not establish a breach of contract.  As the
Plaintiffs based their claim in negligence on an alleged duty of
care arising from the contractual duty to provide a certain level
of security, the claim of negligence also failed.

Second, the Plaintiffs did not allege that they actually read the
Privacy Policy that included the alleged misrepresentation with
respect to the level of security provided and therefore could not
have relied on the alleged misrepresentation in contracting with
LinkedIn.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Complaint did not included sufficient
facts to establish that they suffered damages resulting from the
system breach.  The Plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive
the security they contracted for and therefore suffered economic
loss as a result of the system breach.  However, the alleged
economic loss occurred prior to the system breach and therefore
could not be considered "resulting damage" from the breach.  The
Plaintiffs did not allege that they had suffered any actual harm
as a result of the system breach, for example, theft of their
personally identifiable information, nor did they allege that they
were exposed to an increased risk of future harm in the form of
identity theft or theft of personally identifiable information.
Consequently, the Complaint did not allege the necessary element
of resulting damage from the system breach and did not meet the
threshold to maintain an action in U.S. Federal Court.

The dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint was on terms allowing
the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint and, if possible, correct
some or all of the deficiencies such that the Complaint could
proceed in U.S. Federal Court.


MAGURA USA: Recalls 2,800 Bicycle Hydraulic Disc Brakes
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Magura USA, of Olney, Illinois, and manufacturer, Magura
Germany announced a voluntary recall of about 2,800 Bicycle
Hydraulic Disc Brakes.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The brakes can fail in low temperatures, posing a collision
hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Magura MT 6 and MT 8 hydraulic disc brakes are being recalled.
The brakes consist of a brake lever and master cylinder that
attach to the handlebars, a hose that runs between the master
cylinder and the caliper which attaches to the rear wheel.

The MT 6 brake system is black and silver.  The MT 8 brake system
is black and red.  Both brake systems have the Magura logo and
letters "MT" on the master cylinder, and the word "Magura" on the
caliper.  The word "Six" is on the brake lever of the MT 6 and the
word "Eight" is on the brake lever of the MT 8.

MT 6 and MT 8 brake systems with manufacture date codes between
March 1, 2011, and May 31, 2012, are being recalled.  A date code
in format Y/MM/DD between 10301 and 20531 is located on the
caliper.  Additionally, all MT 6 and MT 8 brake systems without
date codes are being recalled.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://is.gd/8eWBol

The recalled products were manufactured in Bad Urach, Germany, and
sold at bicycle retailers and distributors in the U.S. between
January 2011 and March 2013 for between $269 to $379.

Consumers should immediately stop riding bicycles equipped with
the recalled brakes and contact Magura USA for a free repair.
Magura USA may be reached at (800) 448-3876 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.maguradirect.com/and click on "Recall Information."


MONTREAL: Davies Ward Discusses Quebec Court of Appeal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Philippe Groleau, Esq. -- jpgroleau@dwpv.com -- and Nick
Rodrigo, Esq. -- nrodrigo@dwpv.com -- at Davies Ward Phillips &
Vineberg LLP report that on March 6, 2013, the Quebec Court of
Appeal in Montreal (Ville de) c. Biondi, 2013 QCCA 404 ("Biondi"),
rendered a long-awaited decision in the field of class action
lawsuits.  The decision was based on an appeal from a judgment of
the Superior Court of Quebec that ordered the City of Montreal and
one of its unions (the "Union") to pay damages to the members of a
class resulting from the delay in de-icing roads and sidewalks in
downtown Montreal, and ordering the liquidation of the class
action members' individual claims.  In its judgment, the Superior
Court had, among other things, ordered the Union to pay $2,000,000
in punitive damages to the class members before the individual
claims were liquidated, which involves a long and complex process
that would likely result in a multitude of mini-trials.

The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned this part of the
judgment and unanimously held that the liquidation of punitive
damages was premature.  Article 1621 of the Civil Code of Quebec
provides that an award of punitive damages is to be assessed by
taking into account, among other things, the "extent of the
reparation for which [the defendant] is already liable to the
creditor".  Therefore, it was necessary to wait for the individual
claims for compensatory damages to be liquidated prior to
determining the quantum of punitive damages.

This decision is of particular importance in the context of
jurisprudential developments in the field of class actions in
recent years, which have encouraged the filing of claims primarily
seeking an award for punitive damages.  These developments are of
two types:

"Firstly, the Court of Appeal confirmed the independent nature of
punitive damages in Brault & Martineau c. Riendeau, 2010 QCCA 366,
thereby ending a controversy dating from the case of Beliveau St-
Jacques v. Federation des employees et employes de services
publics inc., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345.  It held that it was possible,
in the context of a class action, to award punitive damages even
in the absence of a finding of compensatory damages.  The Supreme
Court of Canada subsequently confirmed this rule in de Montigny v.
Brossard (Succession), 2010 SCC 51."

"Secondly, the Court of Appeal also confirmed in Collectif de
defense des droits de la Monteregie (CDDM) c. Centre hospitalier
regional du SuroŚt du Centre de sante et de services sociaux du
SuroŚt, 2011 QCCA 826 and in Dell'Aniello c. Vivendi Canada inc.,
2012 QCCA 384, that the existence of a single common question of
law was sufficient to authorize a class action.  In other words,
it is possible that the determination of common issues will not
provide a complete resolution of the dispute, but rather give rise
to numerous 'mini-trials' at the stage of resolving individual
claims, which does not pose an obstacle to a class action."

These two trends paved the way for a new type of class action, in
which it was possible to show on a collective basis that a person
had contravened a law that stipulates an award of punitive
damages, such as the Consumer Protection Act or the Quebec Charter
of Human Rights and Freedoms, even if it was subsequently
difficult or even impossible to prove on a collective basis that
any actual injury resulted from the contravention.  This type of
claim essentially enabled individuals to become akin to private
prosecutors, essentially punishing illegal conduct through the
collection of punitive damages, rather than obtaining compensation
for any injury actually suffered.

The Biondi case will necessarily mitigate this type of practice
given that the liquidation of punitive damages will not occur
until after the long, complex (and therefore costly) step of
liquidating individual claims.  It remains to be seen whether
claimants and their attorneys will completely cease pursuing
awards for compensatory damages, which could slow the award of
punitive damages, as a means of avoiding the consequences of the
Biondi decision.  It will be equally interesting to see whether
courts will permit this type of strategy or whether they will
conclude instead that it is not in the interest of class members
to authorize the waiver of claims to compensatory damages, even in
cases where these may only be liquidated on an individual basis.

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP is an integrated firm of more
than 240 lawyers with offices in Toronto, Montreal and New York.
The firm is focused on business law and is consistently at the
heart of the largest and most complex commercial and financial
matters on behalf of its clients, regardless of borders.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Disputes Athletes' Class Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that a class
action that threatens to undermine the National Collegiate
Athletic Association is heating up.

Lawyers for the NCAA filed court papers on March 14 opposing class
certification in a case led by former high-profile student
athletes alleging a conspiracy to not pay them to broadcast their
images or license their likenesses in videogames.

A ruling on whether current and former student-athletes can
proceed in a group will represent a critical juncture in the
litigation, which has been pending in the Northern District of
California since 2009.  If the NCAA loses, it could increase
pressure on it to settle since the stakes will increase.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order certifying two classes: one
for certain current NCAA Division I men's basketball and football
players whose images in game footage have been licensed by the
NCAA without their permission, and one for similarly situated
former student-athletes.

The proposed class of current players is seeking injunctive relief
while the class of former players is seeking money damages.  The
plaintiffs and the defendants estimate the proposed classes could
be hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Both sets of plaintiffs allege that the NCAA has operated "an
illegal horizontal cartel" with member organizations that has
"conspired to limit and depress the compensation of former
student-athletes for continued use of their images to zero."

The plaintiffs also claim that the NCAA has commercially benefited
from the use of their images and used rules to preclude them from
sharing in those benefits.

In court papers, the NCAA argued that the plaintiffs should not be
able to proceed as groups, in part because there are too many
differences among the individual class members.

                          Wal-Mart Case

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc v. Dukes, which addressed the standards needed to obtain class
certification, lawyers for the NCAA claimed that the plaintiffs
had not put forward enough common evidence to show that NCAA rules
on amateurism prevented the student-athletes from being paid.

Lawyers for the NCAA also argued that the proposed class could not
be certified because there are too many potential conflicts among
its members.  The NCAA noted that the damages model proposed by
the plaintiffs would produce lump sums to each team to be divided
equally among players even though some individual players would
have more valuable licensing rights than others.

"This is an actual conflict, because every dollar awarded to one
class member is necessarily a dollar taken from another," wrote
lawyers for the NCAA.

Michael Lehmann of Hausfeld --
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- an attorney for the plaintiffs, did
not respond to a request for comment.

Lehmann and other attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in their
motion for class certification that all the members of the classes
"share an interest in establishing liability and preventing future
antitrust violations by Defendants."

Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer, said in a statement
on March 14 that courts have repeatedly upheld the concept of
amateurism in intercollegiate sports.

"This case has always been wrong - wrong on the facts and wrong on
the law," he said.

The case is In re NCAA Student-Athlete Likeness Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District for the Northern District of California,
No. 09-1967.

For the NCAA: Gregory Curtner, Robert Wierenga, Frederick
Juckniess, Kimberly Kefalas, Suzanne Wahl, Jessica Sprovtsoff and
Paul Bateman of Schiff Hardin.

For plaintiffs: Michael Lehmann of Hausfeld.


NETFLIX INC: Gets Final OK of Settlement in Consumer Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davilla granted final approval to a
settlement in IN RE: NETFLIX PRIVACY LITIGATION, No. 5:11-CV-00379
EJD, (N.D. Cal.), on March 18, 2013.

The putative class action suit was brought by former Netflix
subscribers Jeff Milans and Peter Comstock.  Mr. Milans claimed
that Netflix unlawfully retained and disclosed his Entertainment
Content Viewing History and other personally identifiable
information located on Netflix's Web site and that of thousands of
other Netflix customers.  A wave of similar suits followed, and on
August 12, 2011, the Court consolidated six cases, granted the
Plaintiffs leave to file an Amended and Consolidated Class
Complaint, and appointed Jay Edelson of Edelson McGuire, LLC as
interim lead Class Counsel.

The Court granted preliminarily approval of a settlement in the
Consolidated Class Action on July 5, 2012.

Under the Settlement, the class is defined as: "[A]ll Subscribers
as of the date of entry of Preliminary Approval. Excluded from the
Settlement Class are: (i) the Settlement Administrator, (ii) the
Mediator, (iii) any respective parent, subsidiary, affiliate or
control person of the Defendant or its officers, directors,
agents, servants, or employees as of the date of filing of the
Action, (iv) any judge presiding over the Action and the immediate
family members of any such person(s), (v) persons who execute and
submit a timely request for exclusion, and (vi) all persons who
have had their claims against Defendant fully and finally
adjudicated or otherwise released."

The size of the class amounts to approximately 62 million
individuals.

The Settlement Agreement requires Netflix to decouple
Entertainment Content Viewing Histories from customers'
identification and payment methods within one year of the
Effective Date of Settlement.

Netflix has agreed to pay a total of $9,000,000 into a Settlement
Fund, which will be used for payment of Settlement Administration
Expenses, a fee award to Class Counsel, and incentive award to the
Class Representatives and Named Plaintiffs.  The balance of the
Fund will be distributed to cy pres recipients.

With regards the Settlement Administration Expenses, the
Plaintiffs have calculated these costs to be $114,570.58 with
additional expected costs of $35,000.

Netflix has agreed to pay Class Counsel a fee award of up to 25%
of the amount of Settlement Fund -- $2,250,000 -- plus
reimbursement of up to $25,000 of costs and expenses.

Netflix has agreed to pay Class Representatives Messrs. Milans and
Comstock as well as the named-plaintiffs in the Related Actions, a
collective incentive award of $30,000.

The parties have agreed to distribute the balance of the
Settlement Fund to not-for-profit organizations, institutions, and
programs for the purpose of educating "users, regulators, and
enterprises regarding issues relating to protection of privacy,
identity, and personal information through user control, and to
protect users from online threats."  The parties have selected 20
organizations which will "spend the funds solely on privacy
protection and education efforts."

A list of the 20 proposed cy pres recipients and explanation of
how they intend to use the funds is posted on the litigation web
site -- www.videoprivacyclass.com   The precise disbursement from
the Settlement Fund to each of these organizations was filed with
the Court.

In exchange, the Settlement Agreement provides that Netflix and
each of its related affiliates and entities will be released from
any claims arising out of, relating to, or regarding the alleged
retention and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the Settlement
Class's personally identifiable information, Video Rental History,
and other information, including but not limited to all claims
that were brought, alleged, argued, raised, or asserted in any
pleading or court filing in the Action.

The Court held that the Settlement Agreement including the Award
of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Award, is fair,
adequate, and reasonable; and satisfies Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e) and the fairness and adequacy factors of the
Circuit.

The Court directs the Clerk of court to close the entire case upon
entry of Judgment.

A copy of the District Court's March 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/20wGYqfrom Leagle.com.


NEW CHAPTER: Recalls Probiotic Elderberry Dietary Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Chapter, Inc. is voluntarily recalling a limited number of
packages of its 90 count Probiotic Elderberry dietary supplement
because it may contain an undeclared allergen -- soy.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.  There have been no illnesses reported to date in
connection with this product.  This product is a food safety
concern only for people who are allergic to soy.

The affected product is packaged in a 90-count amber glass jar
with an outer cardboard carton marked with:

   * Probiotic Elderberry
   * Lot#: 01230049332
   * UPC:  7-27783-00123-8
   * Expiration date: 01/31/15 (located on the bottom of the box
     and on the side of the bottle)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm344783.htm

This voluntary recall is limited only to packages of New Chapter
Probiotic Elderberry bearing the above UPC, expiration date and
lot number.  No other New Chapter products are affected.

The one lot of affected New Chapter Probiotic Elderberry was
distributed nationwide.  It reached consumers through retail
stores, mail order, and direct delivery.

Consumers who have purchased Probiotic Elderberry from this
affected lot may return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact New Chapter at
1-800-543-7279.

New Chapter is also issuing an alert through the Food Allergy &
Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) in an effort to notify any potentially
impacted consumers.


NEW YORK CITY: Stop-and-Frisk Class Action Trial Begins
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Devereaux, writing for The Guardian, reports that a landmark
trial challenging the New York police department's controversial
stop-and-frisk policy began in a lower Manhattan court on
March 18.  The class action suit accuses the NYPD of violating the
constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent New
Yorkers on a widespread and systemic basis.

New York city police officers stopped 685,724 citizens in 2011,
continuing an upward trend that began when Michael Bloomberg
became mayor.  Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped in 2011 had
committed no crime.  The vast majority were black or Latino,
though figures released in August revealed police stops had
dropped by more than 34% compared to the year before.

In opening statements on March 18, attorney Darius Charney with
the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the organizations
bringing the suit, argued the case is about more than numbers.
"It's about people," Mr. Charney told a packed courtroom at the
southern district courthouse.

The stop-and-frisk program has been a signature feature of NYPD
commissioner Ray Kelly's career.  With vocal support from Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, Mr. Kelly has argued that the practice saves
lives -- particularly those of young men of color who are
disproportionately the targets of violent crime -- and removes
guns from the streets.  But critics say stop-and-frisk has
resulted in racial profiling, which humiliates innocent people and
degrades the relationship between communities of color and the
police department.  In arguments on March 18, attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the suit pointed out that recent figures show guns
are recovered in just 0.15% of stops.

In 2012, with a mayoral election fast approaching, stop-and-frisk
had emerged as a hot political issue.  Addressing the court on
March 18, city attorney Heidi Grossman urged Judge Shira
Scheindlin not to be swayed by "media advocates" and focus on
evidence, arguing" the vast majority of stops are legal."

Floyd is the broadest of three stop-and-frisk class action suits
Judge Scheindlin is currently presiding over.  The suit is seen by
many opponents of the practice as historic opportunity to effect
change.  Over the last year Judge Scheindlin has batted down
numerous attempts by the city to have the suit thrown out.

"No case is more critical for the future of our city than this
one," CCR said in a statement distributed to attendees of the
trial.  "At stake are the constitutional rights of hundreds of
thousands of New Yorkers who have been illegally stopped by the
NYPD -- and the rights of untold numbers of New Yorkers who may be
stopped in the future.  The NYPD makes more than half a million
stops a year, which equate to literally thousands of stops a day."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue the department routinely
violates the fourth and 14th amendments of the constitution by
allegedly stopping people without cause and targeting African
American and Latino communities.  As many as 100 witnesses are
expected testify in the case, including numerous NYPD
whistleblowers, the department's spokesman, Paul Browne, and the
NYPD's highest-ranking uniformed officer, Joseph Esposito.

The March 18 proceedings offered a glimpse the arguments to come.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs laid out their plan to illustrate a
"wide gap" between what NYPD numbers say on paper and what they
translate into in practice.  They seek to prove that rights
violations stemming from stops are the result of the department's
hierarchical structure.  "The problem starts at the top and ends
with the stop," Mr. Charney said.

Attorneys for the defendants -- who include Messrs. Kelly and
Bloomberg, the department itself and several named and unnamed
officers -- plan to attack the plaintiffs' expert witness,
Columbia professor Jeffrey Fagan, who has analyzed millions of
copies of NYPD stop forms, known as UF250s?and determined that
race better predicts whether an individual will be stopped than
crime.

"The form alone simply does not tell the whole story,"
Ms. Grossman said on March 18.  "The department explicitly
prohibits racial profiling," she added.  Communities of color
"demand and deserve" the department's protection, she said.

Plaintiffs in the case are seeking injunctive relief in the suit,
rather than damages.  Remedies discussed on March 18 included
comprehensive reform of officer training and the establishment of
a court-appointed monitor to oversee departmental practices.

Sitting in the back of the courtroom on March 18 was the Rev Jesse
Jackson, who indicated he was not impressed the NYPD's defense so
far.  "They were not denying.  They were justifying," Mr. Jackson
said.

WNYC News' Kathleen Horan and the Associated Press report
Mr. Charney said "The police department has shown repeatedly over
the last decade and half that on its own, it's not going to make
the changes necessary."

"Either they say we don't need to change anything or they make
changes that are really just window dressing."

The NYPD has made about 5 million stops over the past decade.

Twenty-five-year-old East Village resident David Ourlicht is one
of the plaintiffs in the case.  He'll be testifying about several
encounters he's had with officers.  He said he hopes the police
reforms the trial is seeking will make city life less restrictive
for young men of color like him.

"I don't want to have to worry about going outside or about the
people who are supposed to protect me. I want to stop fearing the
people who are supposed to protect and serve me," Mr. Ourlicht
said.

He estimates he's been stopped and frisked about 15 times over the
past 10 years, including one incident in East Harlem where he was
instructed to lay face down on the sidewalk while officers had
their weapons drawn.

Celeste Koeleveld, a spokeswoman for the City Law Department, said
police go where the crime is, and minorities are overwhelmingly
the victims of violent crime in the city.  "Precinct by precinct,
the rates at which minorities are stopped are consistent with the
rates at which minorities are identified as crime suspects," she
said.

Mr. Charney said the suit is seeking immediate oversight for a
period of years in which an agent of the court would have an
ability to order that the NYPD make changes to their stop and
frisk practices or be held accountable.


ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED: Littler Discusses EEOC Sanction
----------------------------------------------------
Angelo Spinola, Esq., Danielle Kitson, Esq., Paul Weiner, Esq. and
Katherine Hinde, Esq., at Littler, report that in EEOC v. The
Original HoneyBaked Ham Company of Georgia Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26887 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013), the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado sanctioned the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for failing to provide social media
discovery and for causing unnecessary delays in the e-Discovery
process.

The case involves claims filed by the EEOC against the defendant,
HoneyBaked Ham, alleging a manager sexually harassed a class of
women.  The company sought, among other things, social media
evidence and text messages to dispute the claimants' liability and
damages claims.  In November 2012, the court ordered all claimants
to turn over to a special master social media communications and
any cell phone used to send or receive text messages during the
relevant time period for a forensic collection and review. The
court further ordered claimants to provide access to any e-mail
account, Web site, or cloud-based storage location that they used
to post communications or pictures.

After the EEOC changed its position about how the court's
discovery order was to be implemented, and otherwise failed to
follow the e-Discovery process, the company filed a motion for
sanctions.  On February 28, 2013, the court granted the motion and
held that the EEOC's shifting behavior in implementing the court-
ordered discovery process -- while shy of bad faith -- improperly
delayed the proceedings and unfairly forced the company to spend
more money in litigation.  The court crafted a unique sanction
against the EEOC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
16(f) to curb further misconduct.

The court's decision is the first published decision of its kind
to impose sanctions for e-Discovery misconduct under FRCP 16, as
opposed to the more traditional methods of awarding sanctions
under FRCP 37 or the court's inherent authority to impose
discovery sanctions.  Significantly, a sanction under FRCP 16 does
not require a finding of bad faith. Rather, a party need only
engage in some kind of unreasonable or obstreperous conduct that
delays the discovery process, as the court held the EEOC did in
this case.

The court's decision is also a powerful reminder that, just like
defendants, plaintiffs have e-Discovery obligations, thus
providing employers with strong offensive discovery tools they can
use in defending against both single-plaintiff and class action
claims alike.  Moreover, the decision underscores that in today's
digital world, where individuals who are plaintiffs in litigation
create and control a wealth of electronic data -- personal
computers, PDAs, personal e-mail accounts, social networking sites
and blogs, including professional networking sites like LinkedIn
-- the refrain of yesteryear that individuals do not possess any
relevant electronically stored information ("ESI") in traditional
"asymmetrical" employment cases rings hollow.

Factual Background

The EEOC brought this sexual harassment class action lawsuit
against The Original HoneyBaked Ham Company of Georgia, Inc. in
September 2011, alleging that a male store manager harassed
subordinate female employees.  A group of allegedly aggrieved
individuals ("claimant class members") asserted that as a result
of sexual harassment and retaliation inflicted by their manager
they suffered severe emotional and financial damages.

During the discovery process, it became apparent that the claimant
class members had used text messages, e-mail, and social media to
discuss the case and their claims and to communicate amongst
themselves regarding the lawsuit.  Further, several class members
posted pictures and comments directly related to the allegations
in the case, such as statements about how stress-free their lives
were or the bar they had frequented the night before.  As a
result, the company served discovery requests that asked the
claimant class members to identify and produce relevant data from
cell phones, e-mail addresses/accounts, Facebook pages, blog
posts, and similar sources that they used during the relevant time
period.  The EEOC opposed production and ultimately produced very
little of the information requested. Through its own investigative
efforts, the company discovered highly relevant information on the
claimant class members' Facebook pages and filed a motion to
compel, requesting an order compelling the production of the
requested ESI.

The Order on the Motion to Compel - A Virtual "Everything About
Me" Folder

In November 2012, a federal magistrate judge issued an order
largely granting the company's motion to compel.  While
acknowledging that the discovery requests could constitute a
significant intrusion into claimant class members' semi-private
lives, the court found that the intrusion was justifiable, citing
several reasons, including the fact that the claimant class
members themselves had put such matters at issue by choosing to
participate in the lawsuit.

The court further instructed why broad discovery of social media
ESI was appropriate, explaining that the creation of social media
content is akin to a litigant affirmatively assembling:

. . . a file folder titled "Everything About Me," which [the
claimant class members] have voluntarily shared with others.  If
there are documents in this folder that contain information that
is relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
relating to [the] lawsuit, the presumption is that it should be
produced. The fact that it exists in cyberspace on an electronic
device is a logistical and, perhaps, financial problem, but not a
circumstance that removes the information from accessibility by a
party opponent in litigation.1

Squarely addressing the privacy objection posed in opposition to
production, the court rejected it and reinforced its assessment
that, rather than commanding greater protection against
discoverability per se, social media information may actually be
more readily discoverable, instructing:

If all of this information was contained on pages filed in the
"Everything About Me" folder, it would need to be produced.
Should the outcome be different because it is on one's Facebook
account?  There is a strong argument that storing such information
on Facebook and making it accessible to others presents an even
stronger case for production, at least as it concerns any privacy
objection.  It was the claimants (or at least some of them) who,
by their own volition, created relevant communications and shared
them with others.

Accordingly, the court held there was "no question the Defendant
has established that the documents it seeks contain discoverable
information" and ordered the EEOC to produce the following ESI for
each of the claimant class members:

    * Any cell phone used to send or receive text messages from
January 1, 2009 to the then-present time;

    * All necessary information to access any social media
Web sites used by a claimant class member during said period; and

   * All necessary information to access any e-mail account or
blog or similar/related electronically accessed internet or remote
location used for communicating with others or posting
communications or pictures during said period.

To accomplish this production, the court ordered the parties to
engage a forensic expert as a special master to whom the EEOC
would produce the information, followed by an in camera review by
the court, to ensure the production of only discoverable
information.

The court further ordered the parties to collaborate to produce:
(1) a questionnaire to be given to the claimant class members with
the intent of identifying all such potential sources of
discoverable information; and (2) instructions to be given to the
special master defining the parameters of the information he would
collect.

Order on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions

After the court entered its order, the EEOC generally refused to
produce the court-ordered social media ESI.  For example, the EEOC
initially requested that the court grant it permission to use its
own internal technology personnel, in place of the court-ordered
special master, to save on costs.  The court granted the EEOC's
request, with the specific requirement that the technology
personnel's process be transparent to the company.  The parties
then began extensive negotiations regarding both the protocol to
be used for data collection and the questionnaire to be given to
the claimant class members.

After a month of negotiations, including the exchange of multiple
draft questionnaires and data protocols, conference calls, and
court hearings, the EEOC reversed its position on various issues.
Lodging privacy and privilege objections, the EEOC objected to
allowing the company's attorneys to observe a test run of the
EEOC's internal data processes and requested that the court return
to its original order to appoint a special master.  Additionally,
the EEOC withdrew specific commitments that it had made regarding
the language of the questionnaire, even reversing positions on
language that the EEOC itself had proposed.

As a result of this conduct, the employer filed a motion for
sanctions.  While the court did not grant the full extent of
sanctions the company requested, it found that the EEOC's
reversals increased the company's legal costs and unnecessarily
delayed the proceedings.

However, the court found that the EEOC's behavior did not rise to
the level of "bad faith," as required for sanctions under FRCP 11
or the court's inherent authority.  The court further found that
the EEOC's conduct did not fit squarely into FRCP 37(d) or (f),
and while it was a close question under FRCP 37(b), the court was
not prepared to find that the EEOC disobeyed "the letter" of a
particular order (although it noted that the EEOC had not been
faithful "in spirit").

The court held that a sanction under FRCP 16(f)(1) was appropriate
and necessary under the circumstances, citing a case from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  The court noted that FRCP
16 gave the court the power to impose sanctions for actions that
negatively affected the court's management of its docket and
caused unnecessary burdens on the opposing party, instructing:

"I do not believe it is the proper application of justice to stand
idly by while the Plaintiff's flip-flopping harms the Defendant in
a tangible way that is violative of the spirit of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure."

Accordingly, the court sanctioned the EEOC under FRCP 16(f)(1) for
causing an unnecessary cost burden on the company and for delaying
the case, and awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
expended by the company in bringing the motion.

Takeaways: Continuing the Trend of Holding Plaintiffs to Their
21st Century e-Discovery Obligations

Even in single plaintiff cases, plaintiffs have baseline duties
and responsibilities with respect to e-Discovery and can face
serious consequences for failing to fulfill them.4

The court's order here continues this trend and further
demonstrates the benefit of aggressively seeking e-Discovery of
plaintiffs in 21st century litigation as long as the defendant
abides by the same standards.  Among other things, the court's
order on the motion to compel follows the trend of other courts
across the country that have held that, in addition to basic
sources like home computers and personal e-mail, data from social
media accounts, instant messages, and text messages generally must
be produced by plaintiffs in litigation.  The court's orders
further underscore that, in response to discovery requests seeking
such ESI from plaintiffs, privacy objections are not well
founded.8

Finally, the court's reliance on FRCP 16 to impose e-Discovery
sanctions against the EEOC highlights a different approach to
obtaining sanctions against plaintiffs for e-Discovery delays and
misconduct.  This application of FRCP 16(f) breathes new life into
the Tenth Circuit's 1984 holding in Mulvaney v. Rivair Flying
Services, Inc., 744 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1984), where the
appellate court instructed that courts have "broad discretion" to
use sanctions to ensure that lawyers and parties meet their
obligations towards "the expeditious and sound management of the
preparation of cases for trial."

As applied in this case, FRCP 16(f) is a powerful tool in an
employer's arsenal to invoke against plaintiffs, including the
EEOC, who may unnecessarily slow down, obstruct, or otherwise
impede the e-Discovery process while not actually engaging in
conduct that rises to the level of "bad faith" as required for
sanctions under other rules.  As the Tenth Circuit instructed in
Mulvaney, the application of FRCP 16(f) is appropriate even if the
discovery misconduct does not rise to the level of bad faith
because the court was "dealing with the matter most critical to
the court itself: management of its docket and avoidance of
unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts, opposing parties
or both.  The primary purpose of sanctions in this context is to
insure reasonable management requirements for case preparation."9

It is also important to underscore that employers should ensure
their own house is in order from an e-Discovery standpoint before
aggressively pressing plaintiffs about potential discovery abuses.
From a strategic standpoint and to avoid these types of issues
arising for both parties, employers should attempt to proactively
negotiate a reasonable and efficient e-Discovery protocol -- one
that addresses e-Discovery issues for both parties -- with
opposing counsel as early in a case as possible.  However, in
cases where plaintiffs refuse to then follow the agreed-upon or
court-ordered protocol, employers may have no option but to
approach the court for appropriate relief.


PARADISE CITY: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
three exotic dancers who claim their employer wrongfully took a
portion of their tips have filed a class action lawsuit.  The
lawsuit, filed March 1 in Berkeley County Circuit Court, alleges
Paradise City II in Bunker Hill violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act by
making its dancers pay it from the tips they earned performing
private dances.

"The charges and fines which Defendants required each plaintiff
and other dancers similarly situated to pay were assignments of
wages within the meaning of the WCPA," the complaint says.

"Defendants did not have from either plaintiff or any other dancer
similarly situated the written authorization for wage assignments
required by the WPCA."

The lawsuit follows several filed in 2011 in federal court by
Maryland attorney Gregg C. Greenberg -- ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com --
of the Zipin Law Firm.

Mr. Greenberg filed five complaints from March 7, 2011 to Jan. 2,
2012, in Martinsburg's federal court.  Four have been settled, and
the class action filed by Arielle Jordan, aka Queen, and Patrice
Ruffin, aka Karma, against Legz Club remains pending, though a
settlement has been proposed.

On Feb. 26, U.S. District Judge Gina Groh ordered a stay of
litigation proceedings while she reviews the proposed settlement.
The gross settlement amount is $345,000.  Mr. Greenberg and
Martinsburg attorney Garry Geffert will petition the court for
fees, litigation costs and a named plaintiff incentive award to be
paid out of the $345,000.

The three plaintiffs in the March 1 case against Paradise City II
are Man Le Garrett, Krystal McLaughlin and Jane Roe.  Roe is a
pseudonym being used to avoid violence from third parties.

The case alleges Paradise City II and manager Warren Dellinger
required the three to pay, from their tips, $35 for each private
dance and $30 for a 30-minute dance in the champagne room.  Other
dancers paid even higher amounts, the suit says, including $50 for
a 30-minute dance in the champagne room.

Ms. Garrett and Ms. McLaughlin were employed for four months and
Roe for 11 months.  The women say they will fairly and adequately
represent the class.

The other clubs sued by Messrs. Geffert and Greenberg are Divas,
Underground Casino and Lounge and Taboo Gentlemen's Club.


PETRO-CANADA: McMillan Discusses Quebec Court of Appeal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre-Christian Hoffman -- pierre-christian.hoffman@mcmillan.ca
-- student at law, Sidney Elbaz, Esq. -- sidney.elbaz@mcmillan.ca
-- and Rachel April Giguere, Esq.
-- rachel.april-giguere@mcmillan.ca -- at McMillan LLP report that
the Quebec Court of Appeal recently rendered its judgment in
Lorrain v. Petro-Canada and confirmed the decision rendered in
2011 by the honorable Michele Lacroix of the Superior Court of
Quebec to reject a motion to authorize a class action.

Background

In 2008, the petitioner, Lorrain, who was subsequently joined by
the Automobile Protection Association (APA), filed a motion to
institute a class action and to be granted the status of
representative in such action.  The class for which they claimed
representative status was defined as comprising individuals or
companies employing fewer than 50 people in Quebec who, since
1999, had purchased gasoline at gas pumps controlled by the
respondent oil companies.  The motion alleged that the members of
the aforementioned class were entitled to compensatory and
punitive damages from the respondents for amounts paid in excess
for gasoline, due to the incorrect calibration of the gas pumps
that the respondents controlled.

The evidence submitted by the applicants in support of their
motion was essentially based on statistics published by
Measurement Canada, the federal agency responsible for the
enforcement of the Weights and Measures Act and its regulations.
For background purposes, this Act and its regulations enact
standards for monitoring the accuracy of measurements carried out
in the Canadian market, including those regarding the quantities
of gasoline dispensed from gas pumps and the maximum margin of
error permitted in the delivery of these quantities.

It was alleged that inspections conducted by Measurement Canada
had revealed calibration errors on 8% of the sampled gas pumps,
which errors were unfavorable to consumers in 6% of cases, while
they were to the detriment of merchants in 2% of cases.  This data
was allegedly analyzed by an independent statistician whose
results were subsequently published in a newspaper that reported
that the incorrect calibration of the pumps was unfavorable to
purchasers in 74% of cases.

It was this publication that led to the filing of the applicants'
motion before the Superior Court of Quebec.

The Superior Court of Quebec

Pursuant to article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP),
four criteria must be met in order for a Court to authorize a
motion to institute class action proceedings.

At first instance, the Superior Court of Quebec held that the
applicants failed to meet a first criteria for authorization, as
the facts alleged did not "seem to justify the conclusions
sought".  This reasoning was notably based on the applicants'
inability to demonstrate any direct harm: none of the submitted
invoices showed that the applicants had purchased gasoline at any
of the gas pumps which were found to have an unfavorable
calibration error towards consumers as documented by Measurement
Canada following its inspections.  The Court further stated that
the statistical demonstration made by the applicants that the
purchasers of gasoline appeared to have suffered a prejudice was
not sufficient to allow the class action to proceed as, under
Quebec law, a mere possibility of a prejudice cannot give rise to
civil recourse in the absence of actual damages.

Thereafter, the Court determined that the class description was
overly broad and did not allow for the identification of common
questions regarding each class member's respective right of
action.  As such, it was not possible to analyze the respondents'
liability on a collective basis and therefore another required
criterion for the authorization of the class action was not met.

Finally, noting the lack of seriousness of the applicant, Lorrain
(who had no interest in the class action and did not seem to
understand the basis behind it), the Court concluded that he could
not adequately represent the interest of the members of the
proposed class.  As for the second applicant, the APA, it could
not claim that the interests of its designated members was related
to the purpose for which it was originally constituted, nor that
said designated members had a personal and direct interests in the
class action proceedings.

Throughout its interpretation and application of the criteria for
the authorization of a class action, the Court applied Article 4.2
of the CCP, which provides that legal proceedings must be
proportionate with regards to costs and time, when balanced
against their nature and purpose.

                      The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal confirmed the analysis of the trial judge and
found that the Superior Court of Quebec had correctly applied the
principle of Article 4.2 of the CCP in its analysis of the
criteria for authorization, despite the appellants' contention to
the contrary.

According to the Court of Appeal, the principle of proportionality
applies to the motion for authorization to institute a class
action as with any other proceeding. The Court held that the
Superior Court had not erred in law by considering this principle
in its analysis of the criteria for authorization:

"In sum, it would be contrary to the principle of proportionality
set out in Article 4.2 CCP to authorize a class action with
evidence based solely on strongly challenged assumptions (fault,
harm, contractual relationship, legal interest) and essentially
based on purely statistical data.  To allow an action based on
such evidence would contravene to the principle of judicial
economy."

In examining the application of the criteria for authorization,
the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the trial judge to
refuse to authorize the class action.

Indeed, the Court accepted that Lorrain was not an adequate
representative and confirmed that he could not be replaced by the
APA, since its designated representatives had not demonstrated
that they had suffered any direct damages as a result of the
faults alleged.  The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge
had correctly decided that the scope of the damages and the effect
of the miscalibration of the pumps for each member of the class
was too varied for any common issues to serve as a sufficient
basis to justify the authorization of a class action.

More significantly, the Court found that the applicants had not
demonstrated the appearance of a right and, in applying the
principle of proportionality, the Court found that the proposal of
the applicants that they should be allowed to prove their damages
at trial should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal ultimately
upheld the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec to reject the
authorization of a class action brought on the basis of evidence
purely premised on hypothetical statistics, the value and methods
of which were strongly disputed by the respondents.

                            Conclusion

This decision seems to reflect the desire of Quebec courts to
clarify the application of the criteria to be met for the
authorization of class actions, as well as the principles that are
applicable to it, in order to avoid the institution of frivolous,
hypothetical, theoretical suits or suits that would otherwise be
unlikely to succeed at trial.

Although this decision does not provide for the exact scope of the
burden of demonstration resting on an applicant seeking
authorization to institute a class action, it does confirm that it
is necessary to at least demonstrate an appearance of direct
damages suffered by the designated class representative.  Mere
allegations of damages or the possibility that there "may" be a
group of people who "may" eventually be able to establish the
existence of harm or the existence of damages are not sufficient
grounds for authorizing a class action.

The criterion to the effect that "the facts alleged must appear to
justify the conclusions sought".  Under the CCP does not
specifically require that evidence of damages be presented at the
authorization stage of a class action.  However, based on this
decision, it appears that in addition to demonstrating that the
proposed class representative has a personal and direct interest,
the class representative must also, at a minimum, be able to
demonstrate that such harm appears to have effectively been
suffered.  In other words, the principle of proportionality
militates against the authorization of class actions in respect of
which the demonstration of a right of action is based on
hypothesis or, as in this instance, uniquely on statistical
evidence.

In conclusion, there is hope that this decision, through its
clarification of the proportionality principle in Quebec class
actions proceedings, will be relied on and followed closely in
order to avoid the authorization of dubious class actions and
thereby save valuable judicial resources which may otherwise be
unfairly solicited for excessively onerous and time-consuming
trials.


TC ELECTRONIC: Recalls 388 Units of Bass Guitar Amplifiers
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, TC Group Americas, of Kitchener, ON, Canada, and
manufacturer, tc electronic, of Denmark, announced a voluntary
recall of about 388 Bass Guitar Amplifiers.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A nut inside the chassis can come loose and fall between the
electrical coils, posing an electrical shock hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves tc electronic 250 W bass guitar amplifiers
with model BH250 and serial numbers 1204763 through 12404375.  The
amplifiers are about 8.6 inches wide, 2.5 inches high and 9 inches
deep and have a red front panel.  The model and "tc electronic"
are printed on the front of the amplifier.  The serial number is
located on a white sticker on the back of the amplifier.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/0Oohmy

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at music
and instrument stores nationwide and online from August 2012
through January 2013 for about $450.

Consumers should immediately stop using, unplug the amplifiers and
contact tc electronic for instructions on free shipping and repair
of the recalled product.  tc electronic may be reached at (800)
349-4699 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.tcelectronic.com/and click on
BASS at the top of the page then on BH250 and select BH250 RECALL
for more information.  Consumers can also send an email to
BH250@lifetimeservice.com


THELADDERS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Job Postings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports PhotoTheLadders.com
has been hit with a class action complaint accusing it of
advertising jobs that did not meet the site's former salary
requirements or were not authorized to be posted on the site.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, "TheLadders sold access to
purported '100k+' job listings that (1) did not exist, (2) did not
pay $100k+, and/or (3) were to authorized to be posted on
TheLadders by the employers."

The suit also calls TheLadders's vaunted resume-writing service
misleading, claiming that "[i]nstead of providing bona fide resume
critiques as promised, TheLadders sent its members a form letter
that failed to provide any resume criticism responsive to members'
individual resumes."

The filing is padded with complaints posted on internet boards,
and provides the interesting bit of trivia that, "[a]s of February
15, 2011, upon typing 'the ladders' into Google, the first
'autocomplete' suggestion provided was 'the ladders scam.'"

TheLadders, which was founded in July 2003, initially purported to
offer only jobs that paid a salary of at least $100,000.  In
September 2011, the site did away with the $100,000 salary
minimum.

According to the suit, TheLadders stated that "experts pre-screen
all jobs so they're always $100k+," and invited members and
potential members to "search jobs that have been hand-screened by
our experts."

However, the suit alleges, TheLadders's job listings "were neither
'hand-selected' nor 'pre-screened.'"  Instead, according to the
suit, the site "scraped" job listings from different Web sites
without first obtaining permission, and did not check to see if
the jobs actually paid at least $100,000.  The site also did not
take any steps to see if the jobs were already filled, the suit
alleges.

The suit quotes a number of complaints posted online from
employers and recruiters.  One recruiter/employer quoted in the
complaint says:

"My biggest complaint . . . is when people would call to ask about
a job they saw on The Ladders, or to follow up on an application
they'd made.  I'd have to explain to them that we didn't list on
The Ladders, that the job had been closed for months (in a few
cases, for over a year), and that the job paid well less than six
figures."

The suit's plaintiff, Barbara Ward, is an Arkansas resident who
signed up for TheLadders in January 2011.  According to the
complaint, Ward applied for "numerous" jobs but only heard back
from two employers, allegedly "because the purported opportunities
were stale."

Ward wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who had
a premium membership with TheLadders between March 11, 2007 and
August 31, 2011, as well as a narrower Arkansas subclass.

Alexandre Douzet, who is desired on TheLadders's Web site as "CEO
& Co-founder," said in a statement to Business Insider: "We
believe the allegations set forth in this complaint to be false.
In fact, our employees review job listings before they are posted
to our site, as has always been our protocol."

"Additionally," Mr. Douzet said, "We have a team of specialists
who review resumes and provide individualized critiques.  This
complaint lacks merit, and we fully intend to take the necessary
legal steps to dispose of it quickly.  In the interim, we remain
steadfast in our commitment to providing the best job-matching
experience for employers and job seekers, while serving as the
fastest-growing source for career-driven professionals."

The complaint was posted on corcodilos.com, also known as the "Ask
The Headhunter blog."  The blog's owner, Nick Corcodilos, has
previously alleged some of the same things now charged in the
suit.

In a May 9, 2011 blog post entitled "TheLadders: How the scam
works," Mr. Corcodilos claimed that "TheLadders takes job listings
from employers' own Web sites without authorization, even after
being told to stop, and that TheLadders misrepresents the salaries
on those jobs so that it can beef up its questionable database of
"50,000, high-level 100k+ executive positions."

Mr. Corcodilos also says that "TheLadders CEO, Marc Cenedella, has
admitted that 50% or more of those '$100k+' jobs are 'scraped'
from other online databases, over which TheLadders has no
authority or quality control."  Mr. Corcodilos's blog entry was
cited in the class action complaint.

And in a January 2009 newsletter entry entitled "Liars at
TheLadders," Ask The Headhunter published a chat that allegedly
occurred between a customer of TheLadders and one of its
employees.  The chat was also included in the class action
complaint.

In the chat, the purported TheLadders employee "Andy" tells
customer Alishia that "we make no claims that all of our jobs are
submitted directly to us.  Many of the positions on our site are
linked directly to from external job boards."  Alishia had
complained about a job she said she found on TheLadders, only to
discover that it paid a salary of $50,000 and had not been
authorized by the employer to be posted on TheLadders.

The suit alleges breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, money had and received, unjust enrichment, violation
of the Arkansas Deceptive and Unconscionable Trade Practices Act,
and breach of contract.  The plaintiff and class are asking for a
refund of their subscription and service fees.


UNITED HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Mental Health Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Essig, a contributor for Forbes, reports that a class action
has been filed against UnitedHealth Group on behalf of the NY
State Psychiatric Association and three beneficiaries who had
their coverage for services denied.  The filing alleges that
United enacted a set of multi-layered practices and procedures
that impose unjustifiable restrictions on mental health care.

The complaint states: "United has systematically implemented
unlawful and deceptive practices designed to create the illusion
of impartiality, fairness, and due process while simultaneously
undermining access to treatment for the most vulnerable segment of
our society. United's improper conduct is single-minded -- to
maximize profitability at the expense of disenfranchised
beneficiaries whose shame, fear, and fragility it so keenly
exploits."


VERIZON WIRELESS: Ex-Employee Files Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that an ex-Verizon
Wireless employee filed a proposed class action against the
company on March 14 in Pennsylvania federal court alleging she and
hundreds of her co-workers regularly worked overtime they were not
paid for just to meet the company's productivity benchmarks.
Barbara J. Kennedy, a former Verizon hourly employee who had
worked as a troubleshooter for business clients at the mobile
communications company's Warrendale, Pa., location, claims she
worked about 10 hours of overtime a week and was only paid for
some of that time.


W HOLDING: June 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
pursuant to an order of the United States Court for the District
of Puerto Rico:

       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                   Civil Action No. 07-1886(JAG)
                          (Consolidated)

SAMUEL HILDENBRAND On Behalf of Himself
        and All Others
        Similarly Situated,
        Plaintiff,
        vs.                                      :
        W HOLDING COMPANY, INC., et al.,
        Defendants.

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED W HOLDING COMPANY, INC. PUBLICLY
TRADED SECURITIES BETWEEN APRIL 24, 2006 AND JUNE 26, 2007,
INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, a hearing
will be held on June 10, 2013, at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable
Jay A. Garcia-Gregory, at the Federico Degetau Federal Building,
Courtroom 6, 150 Carlos Chardon Street, San Juan, PR 00918-1767,
for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement
of the Action for the sum of Eight Million Seven Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($8,750,000.00) in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter,
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated February 13, 2013;
(3) whether the Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Action, together with interest thereon, and payment to
Lead Plaintiff for his expenses incurred representing the Class.

If you purchased W Holding publicly traded securities between
April 24, 2006 and June 26, 2007, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this Action and the settlement thereof.  If you have
not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to W Holding Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael,
CA 94912-8040, or by downloading this information at
http://www.gilardi.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than June 14, 2013, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, to the above address, postmarked by May 10, 2013.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be received by
the following no later than May 10, 2013:

LEAD COUNSEL

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          E-mail: RRothman@rgrdlaw.com

          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          380 Madison
          Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

          RIVERO MESTRE
          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Coral Gables, FL 33134

          PEDRO E. RUIZ LAW OFFICE, PSC
          Pedro E. Ruiz-Melendez, Esq.
          P.O. Box 190879
          San Juan, PR 00919-0879

          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          H. Marc Tepper, Esq.
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          E-mail: marc.tepper@bipc.com

          ADSUAR MUNIZ GOYCO SEDA & PEREZ OCHOA PSC
          Eric Perez-Ochoa, Esq.
          P.O. Box 70294
          San Juan, PR 00936-8294

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: March 1, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF
PUERTO RICO


YUBA BICYCLES: Recalls 1,000 Mundo Cargo Bikes Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yuba Bicycles, of Sausalito, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Cargo Bikes.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Passengers' feet can get caught in the rear wheel, posing a foot
injury.

Yuba Bicycles is aware of two reports of passengers having their
feet caught in the rear wheel.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled bicycles are Mundo V4 cargo bikes.  The 26-inch
bicycles have steel frames, aluminum fenders on the front and rear
wheels, and a wood utility deck mounted on the rear cargo rack.
The bikes come in orange, black or blue.  The word "Mundo" is on
the top tube of the bicycle frame and "Yuba" is on the down tube.
The serial number range for the recalled bikes is ADA11A008000 to
ACA12D018000.  The serial number is located on the kickstand
plate.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/1Z27Uc

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
bicycles dealers nationwide and by Yuba Bicycles online from May
2011 through December 2012 for about $1099.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cargo bikes
and contact Yuba Bicycles to receive free wheel covers/wheelskirts
and have them installed at no cost.  Yuba Bicycles may be reached
toll-free at ?(877) 889-9822, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.yubabikes.com/,then click on "Mundo V4.0 recall" under
Recall near the bottom of the page for more information.


* Class Action on "Excessive Bank Fees" Faces Challenges
--------------------------------------------------------
According to Otago Daily Times' Prof David Lont, the class action
on bank fees faces challenges.  It is clear that a class action
against banks over ''excessive fees'' is proving popular with some
disgruntled bank customers.

Some media reports suggest the cost of providing some of the
service is virtually zero.  It sounds like some commentators will
need to brush up on their accounting as this case will seem to
center around what we mean by cost, and that is an accounting
question.

Mr. Lont said "None of us like bank fees but banks are businesses
providing a service and most of us consider it as reasonable for a
business to recover their costs and make a 'fair' profit."

"Essentially, we do not want banks to make excessive profits but
it should also be clear after the global financial crisis that it
is better to have a profitable bank than one needing to be bailed
out by the Government.  If certain bank fees are 'unfair', then
redress is appropriate and this is an important check in our
system."

"Clearly, the funders of the class action are confident of their
position as I understand they must win the case to recover their
costs and make a profit.  So what challenges does the class action
face?

"First, banks will defend the action and they will be well
resourced.  As customers, I suspect we will pay one way or
another.

"Let us assume banks are subject to restrictions so that they are
only able to charge reasonable fees or recover reasonable costs.
Even in such a world, the determination of such costs is
problematic without clear regulatory guidance on what costs may or
may not be recovered.  What we mean by costs will become an
accounting question and what is meant by cost in an accounting
context is not well defined.

"In my view, without such guidance, the class action is more
problematic than is being portrayed."

Consider the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (2003)
(CCFA), which states establishment fees cannot exceed reasonable
costs in connection with the application for credit.  Similar
clauses exist for account maintenance and arrears fees.
Unfortunately, the CCFA is silent on the actual costs that can or
cannot be recovered under the Act.  Ultimately, it would be for
the courts to determine this issue and such guidance is being
sought.

From an accounting perspective, what is meant by ''reasonable
costs'' in connection to some bank service?

At one extreme, some are essentially arguing that such fees should
be restricted to variable costs (costs that vary with the
provision of the service) while others are suggesting fixed costs
(overheads) related to the service should also be considered.

For example, how much does it cost to send an automated e-mail
advising a customer their account is overdrawn.  The variable cost
may be small and this may be what a customer initially considers
to be the "cost".

However, the fixed costs associated with the software and
computers, general overheads and a profit element are also part of
the cost of providing such a service.  The cost structure will
vary between the banks as their use of technology will differ.

Finally, the ability of the accounting system to capture costs
accurately creates issues. Some banks are not charging for certain
services and this is used as an example of overcharging by those
that do.  This is too simplistic.

For example, it could be such costs are recovered from general
accounts fees, lower interest rates, they are using it as a loss
leader, or cost structures differ.  Part of the case will center
on whether the fee charged is cost recovery or a penalty for
breaching one of the conditions of the bank account (or some
combination).

The court may have different views on the ability of banks to
impose a penalty versus the right of banks to recover the costs in
connection with offering a service.  For example, if the right to
impose a penalty is restricted by law so that the bank is not able
to be enriched, then this aspect may prove crucial.

Untangling these two aspects may be challenging as the accounting
issues to do this are complex and not based on an exact science.
However, this does not mean the accounting system cannot provide
help in understanding if unrelated costs are loaded on to fees and
thus creating "unfair" fees.


* India's Companies Bill 2012 Allows Investor Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swapnil Dakshindas, Nilesh Lahoti and Amar Shah, writing for The
Hindu Business Line, report that class action suits, predominantly
a US phenomenon, are common in other developed countries, but are
not as predominant in India. Some of the large suits filed were
Master Tobacco ($206 billion), Dukes vs. Wal-Mart ($11 billion),
Enron ($7.20 billion), WorldCom ($6.20 billion). The numbers are
staggering.

The Companies Bill 2012 proposes to introduce Clauses 245 and 246
on 'Class action suits'.  Class-action suits may be filed by
investors with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) if they
believe that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a
manner detrimental to the interest of the company and its
shareholders.  This is likely to give a small investor, who can
now sue the management of a company, its auditors or a section of
shareholders in case of suspected wrongdoing, an option hitherto
not available under the current regulations.  In 2009, in what is
widely referred to as 'India's Enron', 3 lakh shareholders of
Satyam came together and sued the company.  Satyam's founder
Ramalinga Raju confessed a fraud, and Satyam's share price
collapsed from 179 to Rs 6.  Consequently the shareholders lost
about Rs 5,000 crore.

The shareholders went from the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission to the Supreme Court, and had their claims
rejected and even after four years, are yet to get any meaningful
compensation.  But the shareholders in the US for the same fraud
were able to get $125 million (Rs 675 crore) from the company in
settlement due to a strong class-action framework in US.  This
experience has raised several calls for instilling the culture of
shareholder activism in India.

Class action suits in India have so far been filed under the guise
of Public Interest Litigations.  Courts are free to dismiss these.
The key advantage of encouraging these is that it keeps Indian
companies, its management, directors, auditors, on their toes and
looking over their shoulders for potential legal action.

So far, filing a case of oppression and mismanagement was the only
recourse available to the aggrieved shareholders.  This amendment
would give them a tool to go after the players in the corporate
drama namely management, directors, auditors.  This will also
ensure that experts, advisors and auditors of the company act
carefully and diligently before advising the company.  The
facility to file suit through any person, group of person or
associations may also motivate NGOs and other activists to take up
causes for the affected people.

In sum, it is useful that the Companies Bill expressly provides
for remedies in the form of class actions and takes shareholder
actions outside the purview of the court and places them within
the jurisdiction of the NCLT, which, due to its specialized
nature, is expected to be more efficient and time-sensitive than
the normal court system.  The recognition of such remedies under
statute will provide some relief to affected minority
shareholders.  Allowing such class-action suits should help
improve the quality of financial reporting as well as the quality
of corporate governance in India Inc.

The company, the management and key management personnel,
directors and their auditors would think very carefully and would
own up their responsibility.  The auditors along with others have
to not only play the role of a blood hound but also run the risk
of getting killed in the chase.

The flip side is that this may bring in a new breed of legal firms
who specialize in class action suits and charge contingent fees as
in the US.  It is also likely that the proposed law may bring
genuine management who has erred in their judgment "bona fide" to
face litigation and pay huge penalties.


                             *********

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  * * *