CAR_Public/130328.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 28, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 62

                             Headlines



ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suits Pending
ATLANTIC POWER: Merchant Law Group Launches Shareholder Suit
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Suit
COSTAR GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of LoopNet Merger Suit Deal
ENERGY TRANSFER: Awaits OK of Atty. Fees in Sunoco Merger Suits

ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in Texas Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
ENERGY TRANSFER: Unit Continues to Defend "Price" Suit in Kansas
FOUR BROTHERS: Pizza Chain Faces Minimum Wage & Overtime Suit
GENESEE & WYOMING: Final Hearing on Merger Suit Deal on May 15
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Tax Return Filings

KNIGHT CAPITAL: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Del., N.J. & N.Y.
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Expects "Fernandez" to Amend Suit This Month
KOREA EXCHANGE: May Face Class Action Over High Lending Rates
LKQ CORP: Suit vs. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Pending
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Sought in Tax Auction Suit

MISSOURI: 263 Cities Face Class Action by AT&T Customers
NEW YORK: Stop-and-Frisk Class Action Enters 2nd Day in Court
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appellate Ct. Reversed Class Suit Dismissal
NRG ENERGY: Cheswick-Related Suit vs. GenOn Dismissed in October
NRG ENERGY: Defends GenOn Merger-Related Suits in Del. and Texas

NRG ENERGY: GenOn Awaits Filing of Petition for Certiorari
PITNEY BOWES: Court Dismisses NECA-IBEW Fraud Class Action Suit
QUANTA SERVICES: Suit vs. Insurers Over Cal. Wildfires Dismissed
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmates Sue Over Inadequate Health Care
SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Effective Date of Deal in Cryovac Suits

SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Settlement in Canada to Become Effective
SHEILA MORRISON: Ontario Court Approves $4-Mil. Settlement
SKECHERS USA: "Angell" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
SKECHERS USA: Awaits Approval of Deal to Resolve "Hochberg" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final Approval of "Morga" Suit Settlement
SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Resolve "Boatright" Suit

SKECHERS USA: Final Approval of "Scovil" Suit Accord Pending
SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Resolve "Stalker" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final Approval of "Tomlinson" Suit Accord
SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final OK of Accord in Ky. Toning Shoes Suit
SKECHERS USA: Final Approval of "Grabowski" Suit Accord Pending

SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final Okay of Deal to Resolve "Loss" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Defends "Chavez" Wage and Hour Suit in California
SKECHERS USA: Defends "Davies" Class Suit in Alberta, Canada
SKECHERS USA: Defends "Dedato" Class Suit in Ontario, Canada
SKECHERS USA: Defends "Niras" Class Suit in Ontario, Canada

SKECHERS USA: Defends "Sayles" Wage and Hour Suit in California
SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Lovston" Suit Directed to Mediate
STANDARD FIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Knowles Class Action
SYDNEY STEEL: Gov't Lawyer Balks at Plaintiffs' Shotgun Approach
TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Action Settlement May Have Repercussions

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Okay
YAHOO! INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Remains Pending

* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit 14-Year Low in 2012


                             *********


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss securities
lawsuits in California remain pending, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaints have been brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
BELVIQ (lorcaserin HCI) program, thereby artificially inflating
the price of the Company's common stock.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  On
November 19, 2010, eight prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead
counsel.  The Court took the motions to consolidate under
submission on January 14, 2011.  On August 8, 2011, the Court
consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  On December 30, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and the Court took the
motion to dismiss under submission on April 13, 2012.

In addition to the class actions, a complaint involving similar
legal and factual issues has been brought by at least one
individual stockholder and is pending in federal court.  On
December 30, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
stockholder's complaint.  The motion to dismiss has been fully
briefed and the Court took the motion to dismiss under submission
on April 13, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend against the claims advanced
and to seek dismissal of these complaints.  Due to the early stage
of these proceedings, the Company is not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.arenapharm.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and
commercializing novel drugs that target G protein-coupled
receptors to address unmet medical needs.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in 1997 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


ATLANTIC POWER: Merchant Law Group Launches Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP launched a class action with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, seeking to recover hundreds of millions
of dollars in damages on behalf of Atlantic Power Corporation
shareholders.

The litigation launched on March 19 is the first shareholder class
action filed against Atlantic Power Corporation in Canada, and
Atlantic Power Corporation is also facing several major class
actions in the United States.

"Atlantic Power Corporation has experienced a dramatic recent loss
in share value.  ATP shares have fallen from a 52-week high of
$15.12 to trading today at below $5.40.  Canadians who own ATP
shares have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in share value as
a result," said Evatt Merchant, regarding the Canadian ATP
litigation being handled by his law firm.

As stated in the litigation, Atlantic Power Corporation repeatedly
emphasized in statements to the market that its previous dividends
would be "sustainable into 2016 before considering any positive
impact from potential future acquisitions or organic growth
opportunities."  Notwithstanding those previous statements,
shareholders have recently seen the dividend paid on their shares
slashed by more than half, Merchant said.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juanita Delgado brought a suit against Capital Management Services
LP, CMS General Partner LLC, and CMS Group Inc., under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.  Ms.
Delgado alleges that the Defendants violated the FDCPA when they
sent her a debt collection letter which implied that she was
liable for a debt for which judicial collection was barred by the
Illinois statute of limitations.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Ms. Delgado's Complaint under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the FDCPA does not prevent a
debt collector from attempting to recover a time-barred debt.

Because the Court finds that Ms. Delgado has stated plausible
claims for relief under the FDCPA, District Judge Sara Darrow
denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

With respect to Section 1692e, Judge Darrow said it is plausible
that an unsophisticated consumer with only "rudimentary knowledge
about the financial world" could view CMS's dunning letter as
false, deceptive, or misleading, because the letter's failure to
disclose that CMS cannot collect on the debt, compounded by its
offer of settlement, implies a legal obligation to pay.  It is
likewise plausible that an unsophisticated consumer could find
that the letter makes a false representation of the character or
legal status of the debt (i.e. that it is legally enforceable)
under Section 1692e(2) or is a threat to take any action that
cannot legally be taken (i.e. suing Delgado) under Section
1692e(5), or could consider it a false representation or deceptive
means to attempt to collect a debt under Section 1692e(10).

The case is JUANITA DELGADO, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES LP, CMS GENERAL PARTNER LLC, and CMS GROUP INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:12-cv-4057-SLD-JAG, (C.D. Ill.).

A copy of the District Court's March 22, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/yJfpqXfrom Leagle.com.


COSTAR GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of LoopNet Merger Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoStar Group, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In May 2011, LoopNet Inc., the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the
Company.  The stockholder actions alleged, among other things,
that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary
duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of
LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to
LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made
incomplete or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board.  The stockholder actions sought class action
certification and equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the merger.  The parties have stipulated
to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a
consolidated complaint.

In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of
this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of
approximately $200,000.  The Company anticipates that the payment
will be made by March 31, 2013, upon the court's final approval of
the settlement.

CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides
information/marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Awaits OK of Atty. Fees in Sunoco Merger Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. is awaiting court approval of its
subsidiary's agreement to compensate the plaintiffs' attorneys in
the state court merger-related actions in the aggregate amount of
not more than $950,000, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP") is managed by its general
partner, Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. ("ETP GP"), and ETP GP
is managed by its general partner, Energy Transfer Partners,
L.L.C. ("ETP LLC"), which is owned by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
("ETE"), another publicly traded master limited partnership.

On October 5, 2012, Sam Acquisition Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P. ("ETP"), completed its merger with Sunoco, Inc.
("Sunoco").  Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco
shareholders received a total of approximately 54,971,724 ETP
Common Units and a total of approximately $2.6 billion in cash.

Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30, 2012,
eight putative class action and derivative complaints were filed
in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  Each complaint names as
defendants the members of Sunoco's board of directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and
executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger
agreement that provides inadequate consideration and that contains
impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids.  Each
complaint also names as defendants Sunoco, ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC,
and Sam Acquisition Corporation, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Sunoco's directors; some
of the complaints also name ETE as a defendant on those aiding and
abetting claims.  In September 2012, all of these lawsuits were
settled with no payment obligation on the part of any of the
defendants following the filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K
that included additional disclosures that were incorporated by
reference into the proxy statement related to the Sunoco Merger.
Subsequent to the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs'
attorneys sought compensation from Sunoco for attorneys' fees
related to their efforts in obtaining these additional
disclosures.

In January 2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to compensate the
plaintiffs' attorneys in the state court actions in the aggregate
amount of not more than $950,000 and to compensate the plaintiffs'
attorneys in the federal court action in the amount of not more
than $250,000.  The payment of $950,000 is pending approval by the
state court.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. -- http://www.energytransfer.com/-
- a Delaware limited partnership, is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization.  The Company, which is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its
general partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., which is owned
by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded master
limited partnership.  The Company's activities, which are
conducted through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries include
natural gas operations, transportation of natural gas liquids,
storage and fractionation services and refined product and crude
oil operations.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in Texas Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated merger-related lawsuit
pending in Texas, according to Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP") is managed by its general
partner, Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. ("ETP GP"), and ETP GP
is managed by its general partner, Energy Transfer Partners,
L.L.C. ("ETP LLC"), which is owned by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
("ETE"), another publicly traded master limited partnership.

On March 26, 2012, ETE completed its acquisition of Southern Union
Company.  Southern Union is the surviving entity in the merger and
operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE.

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as
Southern Union and ETE.  The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas and Magda v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The lawsuits
were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern Union
Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The amended petitions allege that the Merger
involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that
Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The amended petitions seek injunctive relief,
including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.  On October
21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13, 2011 motion to stay
the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and
ETE.  Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant.
These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et
al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union
Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management
Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-
CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS.
These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re
Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The consolidated complaint
asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court
consolidated action.  On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without
prejudice.  In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were
being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated
their intent to join the Texas case.

The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. -- http://www.energytransfer.com/-
- a Delaware limited partnership, is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization.  The Company, which is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its
general partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., which is owned
by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded master
limited partnership.  The Company's activities, which are
conducted through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries include
natural gas operations, transportation of natural gas liquids,
storage and fractionation services and refined product and crude
oil operations.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Unit Continues to Defend "Price" Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s subsidiary continues to defend
itself against a purported class action lawsuit initiated by Will
Price, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, an
indirect subsidiary, alleging mis-measurement of natural gas
volumes and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties to mineral
interest owners.  On September 19, 2009, the Court denied
plaintiffs' request for class certification.  Plaintiffs have
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on
March 31, 2010.  Panhandle believes that its measurement practices
conformed to the terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) natural gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by
the FERC.  As a result, Southern Union Company, Panhandle's
parent, believes that it has meritorious defenses to the Will
Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative defenses, such
as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the primary/exclusive
jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that Panhandle complied
with the terms of its tariffs).  In the event that Plaintiffs
refuse Panhandle's pending request for voluntary dismissal,
Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case.  Southern
Union believes it has no liability associated with this
proceeding.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. -- http://www.energytransfer.com/-
- a Delaware limited partnership, is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization.  The Company, which is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its
general partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., which is owned
by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded master
limited partnership.  The Company's activities, which are
conducted through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries include
natural gas operations, transportation of natural gas liquids,
storage and fractionation services and refined product and crude
oil operations.


FOUR BROTHERS: Pizza Chain Faces Minimum Wage & Overtime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Johnson, writing for Hudson-Catskill Newspapers, reports
that Four Brothers Pizza Inn is facing a roughly $2 million
lawsuit for allegedly refusing to pay workers minimum wage and
denying them overtime pay during work weeks stretching as long as
72 hours.

Attorney Mary Graver of the Worker Justice Center of New York
filed the lawsuit with co-counsel Nathaniel Charny of Charny &
Associates in federal court in White Plains on March 6.

Four Brothers Pizza consists of nine restaurants in New York and
Massachusetts including two in Columbia County in Hillsdale and
Valatie and five in Dutchess County in Rhinebeck, Amenia, Dover
Plains, Millerton and Pleasant Valley.  The plaintiffs allege only
the defendants know the precise number of individuals deserving of
compensation.  However, Milan Bhatt, the co-executive director of
WJCNY, said alleged actions of Four Brothers Pizza affected
dozens.

"We believe this is a very sizable case, impacting as many as 75
workers," Mr. Bhatt said. "We believe this conduct was widespread
over the course of many years."

The lawsuit lists the plaintiffs as having full-time employment at
various times from 2005 to 2012.  During this period, individuals
allegedly worked regularly between 60 and 72 hours, but were not
given time and a half after working 40 hours.  Mr. Charny
estimates the workers are owed at least $1 million, which is
doubled as a penalty for the defendants.

There is also a claim the four brothers Peter, William, George and
Christo Stefanopoulos forced employees to record approximately
half of their daily hours.  The workers were then told to endorse
their checks and return them to the defendants at which point the
workers would be paid between $300 and $500 in cash.

Ms. Bhatt said threats and intimidation played significant roles.
He said a lot of Four Brothers Pizza employees were Mexicans
working as dishwashers and kitchen staff.

"There was a lot of racial harassment. Racial slurs were being
used," Ms. Bhatt said.  "There were ongoing threats if they
complained about the conditions immigration would be called."

The court has granted the plaintiffs a motion to proceed
anonymously as John Doe I and John Doe II.  Mr. Charny said
keeping the employees identities anonymous is vital because of
problems they may face because of their immigration status.

"We have to make sure our clients are not retaliated against,"
Mr. Charny said.  "If they get deported the results would be
catastrophic because a lot of these workers are the only
breadwinners in their family."

Four Brothers offers an employment application on their website.
It can be submitted either directly on the website or downloaded
as a PDF.  Both documents ask if the applicant is legally eligible
to work in the United States with the latter making reference to
the Immigration Reform and Control Acts of 1986.  The lawsuit
lists the plaintiffs as former employees of the defendant residing
in New York state.

Mr. Charny, whose firm has worked often with WJCNY in the past,
said while immigration is an issue in the case, it goes beyond
just immigrants.  Mr. Charny said employees often do not receive
overtime compensation and gave an example.

"A lot of people do not realize they are entitled to overtime
compensation," Mr. Charny said.  "A lot of people think if they're
on salary they can't get overtime.  That's not true."

Right now Ms. Graver and Mr. Charny are requesting the court
consider the case a class action lawsuit.  To succeed they will
have to prove there is a big enough group affected, the
individuals in this group all experienced the same effects and a
claim can be made.

A manager reached at Four Brothers Pizza on March 18 said the
facts were a lawsuit had been filed, but nothing had been proven.
He said all four brothers were out and they would probably have no
comment.  A message requesting comment was left for the
Stefanopoulos family, but it was not returned.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Final Hearing on Merger Suit Deal on May 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final approval of Genesee & Wyoming Inc.'s settlement
of merger-related lawsuits in Florida is scheduled for May 15,
2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On October 1, 2012, the Company acquired RailAmerica, Inc. for
approximately $2.0 billion (equity purchase price of approximately
$1.4 billion plus net debt of $659.2 million), which is the
Company's largest acquisition to date.  RailAmerica owned and
operated 45 short line freight railroads in North America, with
approximately 7,100 miles of track in 28 U.S. states and three
Canadian provinces as of the acquisition date.  The acquisition is
expected to provide a wide national footprint for future
industrial and commercial development along the Company's 108
railroads in North America, and to allow the Company to realize
significant cost savings.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of RailAmerica, five
putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in 2012,
three in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Delaware
Court) and two in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit
for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division (Florida Circuit Court),
against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica directors and Genesee &
Wyoming.

The two lawsuits filed in the Florida Circuit Court alleged, among
other things, that the RailAmerica directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell
RailAmerica to Genesee & Wyoming via an allegedly flawed process
and failed to obtain the best financial and other terms and that
RailAmerica and Genesee & Wyoming aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of duty.  The complaints requested, among other relief,
an order to enjoin consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees.
On July 31, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a
motion to consolidate the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs
Langan and Sambuco as lead plaintiffs and appoint lead counsel in
the proposed consolidated action.  The Plaintiffs in the Florida
actions also filed an emergency motion for expedited proceedings
on August 7, 2012, and an amended complaint on
August 8, 2012, which included allegations that the information
statement filed by RailAmerica on August 3, 2012, omitted material
information about the proposed merger.  On August 17, 2012, the
parties in the Florida actions submitted a stipulation for
expedited proceedings, which the Florida Circuit Court ordered on
August 20, 2012.

The three lawsuits filed in Delaware Court named the same
defendants, alleged substantially similar claims, and sought
similar relief as the Florida actions.  The parties to the
Delaware actions submitted orders of dismissal in November 2012,
which the Delaware Court has granted.

On December 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other parties to the
Florida actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle all related claims.
The settlement is not material and is subject to, among other
things, final approval by the Florida Circuit Court.

On January 28, 2013, the Florida Circuit Court gave preliminary
approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing on final
approval of the settlement for May 15, 2013.

Genesee & Wyoming Inc. -- http://www.gwrr.com/-- owns and
operates short line and regional freight railroads and provides
railcar switching and other rail-related services in the United
States of America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium.
The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1977 and is
headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Tax Return Filings
------------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that a class-action suit was filed against H&R Block Inc. on
March 19 for the faulty filing of hundreds of thousands of tax
returns that led to a delay of payment for as long as six weeks.

The suit alleges that H&R Block advertises a 100% accuracy
guarantee for all of its products and that the company made a
mistake but hasn't offered compensation to any of the plaintiffs
or members of the class.

The suit points to statements H&R Block CEO Bill Cobb issued, in
which he admitted H&R Block made a mistake.

"This was our mistake -- and I sincerely apologize," Mr. Cobb
stated.  "I want you to know that we hear the frustration of those
impacted by this issue loud and clear, and we're working every
avenue we can to get your refund to you as fast as possible
.  . . . Finally, I know an apology won't put your tax refund in
your hands right away, and many of you still have questions.  But
right now, our singular focus is to get you that refund, and we
have all hands on deck to help make this right."

The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by Arthur
Green and Amy Hamilton, who are represented by Adam Taub &
Associates Consumer Law Group in Southfield, Mich., and Edelman
Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC of Chicago.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and litigation expenses, and other relief deemed
proper by the court.

Representatives of H&R Block could not immediately be reached for
comment.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Del., N.J. & N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Capital Group, Inc. is defending merger-related lawsuits
brought by stockholders in Delaware, New Jersey and New York,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 19, 2012, Knight, GETCO Holding Company, LLC ("GETCO")
and an affiliate of GETCO entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") for a strategic business
combination.  As a result of the proposed strategic business
combination (the "Merger"), Knight and GETCO will each become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Holdco, Inc., a newly-formed
Delaware corporation ("KCG").  The business of KCG will be the
combined business of Knight and GETCO.  The Merger is expected to
be completed in the second quarter of 2013, subject to approval by
the Company's stockholders and GETCO's voting unitholders,
customary regulatory approvals and satisfaction of customary
closing conditions.

                       Delaware Litigation

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8163-VCP.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company, each member of the Company's Board of Directors (the
"Individual Defendants"), GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC.  The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an
inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight.  The complaint also
alleges that the Company, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger (to the
extent the Merger has already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8159-VCP.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC.  The
complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting
an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed
by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number
of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less
likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers
for Knight.  The complaint also alleges that the Company and GETCO
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger
(to the extent the Merger has already been consummated), and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated for all
purposes the McMillan and Dominique actions into a single action
captioned In re Knight Capital Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 8159-VCP.

                      New Jersey Litigation

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone
Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC,
Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO
Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC.  The complaint generally
alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a
number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements,
which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO.  The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Merger.
The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, rescission
of the Merger (to the extent the Merger has already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone
Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC,
Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO
Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC.  The complaint generally
alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a
number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements,
which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO.  The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Merger.
The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, rescission
of the Merger (to the extent the Merger has already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

                       New York Litigation

On January 15, 2013, the Company, the Individual Defendants, GETCO
Holding Company LLC, GA-GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named
as defendants in an action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York (New York County).  The plaintiff, Joel
Rosenfeld, is one of the shareholders who previously sent the
Company a derivative demand letter.  Generally, this complaint
asserts both derivative and class action claims.  First, it
purports to assert derivative claims, which allege, among other
things, that the seven Knight directors who were serving as of
August 1, 2012, breached their fiduciary duties and wasted
corporate assets by failing to erect and oversee effective
safeguards to prevent against trading incidents, such as the one
that occurred on August 1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a
realized pre-tax loss of approximately $457.6 million.  Second, it
asserts putative class action claims resulting from the proposed
Merger for (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual
Defendants; and (2) aiding and abetting the purported breach of
fiduciary duty against GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic.
In particular, the complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
at an inadequate price, agreeing to a number of improper deal
protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it
less likely that other bidders would make successful competing
offers for Knight, and that certain of Knight's directors have
conflicts of interest in connection with the transaction,
including that certain directors sought to enter into the
transaction to avoid potential liability relating to the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint.  Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the proposed Merger, rescission of
the proposed Merger (to the extent it has already been
consummated) and attorneys' fees. With respect to the derivative
claims, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring
Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012, to pay
restitution and/or compensatory damages in favor of Knight and/or
the proposed class of Knight shareholders.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Knight Capital Group,
Inc. -- http://www.knight.com/-- is a Delaware corporation
organized in January 2000 as the successor to the business of
Knight/Trimark Group, Inc.  The Company is a global financial
services firm that provides access to the capital markets across
multiple asset classes to a broad network of clients, including
buy- and sell-side firms and corporations.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Expects "Fernandez" to Amend Suit This Month
------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Capital Group, Inc. expects the plaintiff in a securities
class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey to file an amended
complaint this month, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

                          Osgood Action

On August 17, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in an
action entitled Osgood v. Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  Generally,
this putative class action complaint alleged that Knight failed to
disclose both its intention to install a new algorithm and the
risks associated with such an algorithm.  The plaintiff asserted
claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the federal
securities laws and Tennessee statutes and common law, claiming
that he and a class of Knight shareholders who purchased the
Company's Class A common stock between February 29, 2012, and
August 1, 2012, paid an inflated price.  On December 20, 2012,
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Osgood action in favor of the
Fernandez action.

                        Fernandez Action

On October 26, 2012, the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay, were
named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v. Knight
Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  Generally, this putative class action complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1.  The
plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-
5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that he and a class of
the Company's shareholders who purchased the Company's Class A
common stock between January 19, 2012, and August 1, 2012, paid an
inflated price.  The parties have entered into a scheduling order
and expect plaintiff to file an amended complaint in March 2013.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Knight Capital Group,
Inc. -- http://www.knight.com/-- is a Delaware corporation
organized in January 2000 as the successor to the business of
Knight/Trimark Group, Inc.  The Company is a global financial
services firm that provides access to the capital markets across
multiple asset classes to a broad network of clients, including
buy- and sell-side firms and corporations.


KOREA EXCHANGE: May Face Class Action Over High Lending Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap News Agency reports that a South Korean consumer advocacy
group said on March 20 it plans to lodge a class action suit
against local banks over their practice of imposing unduly high
spreads on lending rates.

The Financial Consumer Agency said it will seek to accept cases of
financial damage caused by banks' higher lending rates and to file
a class action suit as local banks unduly charged higher spreads
on lending.

The move came one day after prosecutors raided the headquarters of
Korea Exchange Bank (KEB) to investigate allegations that it
deliberately charged higher spreads on lending rates for smaller
firms.  KEB's move is estimated to have generated profits worth
more than 18 billion won (US$16.1 million).

Usually, spreads are calculated based on borrowers'
creditworthiness and the value of collateral, but KEB is suspected
of randomly hiking the spreads between 2006 and 2012.

The advocacy agency said that other banks might have engaged in
such similar practices, calling for authorities to expand the
investigation into other banks.  It added that a combined profit
from unduly charged spreads might have amounted to more than
5 trillion won for the past 10 years.

The spread charged on banks' household lending rate is estimated
to be as high as 8 percentage points with an average of such
spreads hitting 3.8 percentage points, industry data showed.  The
central bank's key rate stood at 2.75% in March and the average
rate for banks' new loans to households and firms stood at 5% in
January.

If the probe is to be expanded, Korean banks will inevitably face
further setbacks in a situation where they suffer from squeezed
profit margins amid the central bank's easing cycle and the
economic slowdown.

Korean banks' profits are mostly generated from interest income as
the portion of non-interest income is marginal.


LKQ CORP: Suit vs. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
LKQ Corporation is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several aftermarket product suppliers.  During 2012, the Company
recognized gains totaling $17.9 million resulting from settlements
with certain of the defendants.  These gains were recorded as a
reduction of Cost of Goods Sold on the Company's Consolidated
Statements of Income.  The class action is still pending against
two defendants, the results of which are not expected to be
material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows.  If
there is a class settlement with (or a favorable judgment entered
against) each of the remaining defendants, the Company says it
will recognize the gain from such settlement or judgment when
substantially all uncertainties regarding its timing and amount
are resolved and realization is assured.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

LKQ Corporation -- http://www.lkqcorp.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in Chicago, Illinois.  LKQ provides replacement
parts, components and systems needed to repair cars and trucks.


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Sought in Tax Auction Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that St. Jacob attorney John Barberis and Collinsville
lawyer Steve Giacoletto are requesting class certification in a
lawsuit filed Feb. 21 on behalf of property owners who allege they
suffered financial losses in relation to delinquent tax sale
auctions administered by Madison County officials from 2005
through 2009.

Madison County Associate Judge Steve Stobbs was assigned to the
class action lawsuit involving delinquent tax sales handled by
former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon.

The motion for class certification was filed March 18 in Madison
County Circuit Court.

The class that plaintiffs seek to certify consist of anyone prior
to and continuing through 2009 that directly and indirectly
suffered damages as a result of illegal agreements or conspiracies
whereby the defendants would ensure there was little or no
competitive bidding at public auctions involving Madison County
Tax Sales Certificates, the motion states.  It also states that
the class would include, but not necessarily be limited to,
persons whose property taxes were redeemed by them or on their
behalf or who lost ownership and or equity interests in their
property.

"Upon information and belief, the members of each class of persons
affected by the defendants' action exceeds 10,000 in number for
the subject matters alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint thus is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable," it
states.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of each class.

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

The suit names Madison County, Mr. Bathon, and individuals linked
to the tax sale as defendants.

Madison County case number 13-L-276.


MISSOURI: 263 Cities Face Class Action by AT&T Customers
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Erickson, writing for NewsmagazineNetwork, reports that
another round of a major class action lawsuit is under way -- a
legal tussle that could cost West County communities and a total
of 263 Missouri cities an estimated $14 million if they lose.

At issue is money the cities collected from a tax charged to
customers by AT&T's wireless unit on data plans for the users'
cell phones and other devices.  The Missouri cities received
proceeds from that tax and the customers want it back, claiming
the levy should not have been assessed due to a federal law that
prohibits most taxes on Internet access until late in 2014.

The Missouri-related aspects of the case are only part of a
massive lawsuit that began with the filing of similar complaints
in more than two dozen states and Puerto Rico some four years ago.
All but one of those legal actions were combined in a federal
class action lawsuit assigned to the eastern division of the U.S.
district court of Northern Illinois.

And while the dollar amount in Missouri is substantial, the
aggregate in all the states has been estimated in court documents
at "hundreds of millions."

Settlement of the original battle resulted in a demand from the
communication giant that the cities return the tax revenues AT&T
had collected and distributed to them. The cities have balked at
the command, resulting in the latest lawsuit filed on behalf of
AT&T customers in January.

The issue was discussed at the Ballwin Board of Aldermen's
March 11 meeting as part of a proposal that was approved to join
with other members of the St. Louis County Municipal League in
hiring the law firm of Curtis Heinz Garrett & O'Keefe (CHG) in
Clayton to represent them in the lawsuit.

According to a Municipal League spokesman, the law firm will work
with attorneys representing other communities around the state in
coordinating the cities' defense.

Robert Jones, Ballwin's city attorney who is part of the CHG firm,
said the amount the lawsuit is seeking from Ballwin is nearly
$144,000.

While Ballwin has insurance providing coverage for various
liability issues, a claim filed by the city for the amount AT&T
has demanded was denied, Jones said.

Spearheading the legal actions against AT&T is the Kansas City-
based law firm of Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorny.


NEW YORK: Stop-and-Frisk Class Action Enters 2nd Day in Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
News12 Bronx reports that the class-action lawsuit against the
NYPD's controversial stop-and-frisk policy has entered its second
day in federal court.

More than 100 witnesses are now expected to testify as the trial
progresses, including black and Hispanic men who claim they were
targeted because of their race.  Officers are also expected to
take the stand.

Use of the tactic has already been determined to be legal, but
plaintiffs want to change how police make their stops.  The
lawsuit revolves around David Floyd, a medical student from the
Bronx who says he was stopped twice, including one time while
trying to help a neighbor.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have
long advocated the program, arguing that it has helped bring crime
in the city to an all-time low.

             Brooklyn Lawmakers Support Class Action

Caitlin Nolan, writing for Fort Greene-Clinton Hill Patch, reports
that councilwoman Letitia James, D-35, said "Floyd v. the City of
New York represents the frustration and humiliation of thousands
of New Yorkers who have been approached by police in suspicion-
less stops."

Brooklyn elected officials gathered outside a Manhattan courthouse
on March 19 to express their support for a federal lawsuit against
the New York Police Department's controversial stop, question and
frisk policy, saying the practice is discriminatory and needs to
be ended if police accountability is to improve.

The class action suit -- Floyd v. City of New York -- accuses the
NYPD of violating hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers'
constitutional rights on an extensive, systemic basis.

"The Floyd trial gives hope to hundreds of thousands of New
Yorkers who feel their voices have been stifled by unjust policing
practices and the City that supports them," said Councilman
Jumaane Williams, D-45, in front of 500 Pearl St.

"Stop, question and frisk is not only discriminating against
historically disenfranchised communities like mine, it is simply
not correlating with any positive improvement in our public
safety," he continued.  "The anger in our neighborhoods is real,
being witnessed in real time, and change is long overdue. Justice
in this case will result in better policing and safer streets for
all."

The lawsuit, brought on by several New Yorkers and the Center for
Constitutional Rights, alleges the stop-and-frisk policy is based
on racial profiling and challenges suspicion-less stop-and-frisks
violate the Constitution's protections against racial
discrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Floyd v. the City of New York represents the frustration and
humiliation of thousands of New Yorkers who have been approached
by police in suspicion-less stops," Councilwoman Letitia James, D-
35, said.

"Under this administration, the dramatic increase in the
application of stop-and-frisk has needlessly redirected necessary
police forces and resources," she continued.  "It is my hope that
the findings in this case serve as a notice to the incoming
administration that elected officials, advocates, and communities
of color cry out for a protocol that respects the rights of all."

Brooklyn experiences more stop-and-frisks than any other borough
in the city.  According to the NYPD's data, more than 225,000 -- a
quarter of a million -- stops were made in Brooklyn in 2011 alone.

"Commissioner Kelly always tries to downplay the number of stops
police make, but it goes on 24/7 in my community," said Aaron
Henton, a 28-year-old African-American community activist and
VOCAL-NY member from East New York who has been stopped more than
30 times by the police.

"The police always tell me I 'fit the description' for this or
that crime, but I guess to them we all look alike," Mr. Henton
said.  "I work with youth and try to set an example for them, so
it makes me wonder how much they must be going through if someone
like me in the community is being stopped this often.  The time
has come to end this injustice before it ruins another
generation's relationship with the police."

Stop-and-frisk practices have been long-criticized and rejected as
a violation of the basic civil rights of New Yorkers, particularly
those of communities of color.

"We all need our communities and our families to be safe, but we
cannot make them safe by denying the fundamental civil rights of
our neighbors," said Councilman Brad Lander, D-39.  "African-
American and Latino young men have just as much right to walk down
the street without being stopped by the NYPD as the rest of us.
Yet even in Park Slope, 79% of stop-and-frisks target people of
color.  And Muslim New Yorkers have just as much right to pray
without fear of undercover NYPD surveillance as the rest of us.
The time has come to end discriminatory policing."

Councilman Steve Levin, D-33, agreed, saying the policy is
diminishing trust between Brooklyn communities and law
enforcement.  "New York City cannot tolerate a policy that
violates the rights of its citizens," he said.

Critics of the policy note that the 600% increase in stop-and-
frisks between 2002 and 2011 in New York City, the number of gun
violence victims has remained at nearly the same level.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appellate Ct. Reversed Class Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court reversed earlier this month the dismissal of a
securities class action lawsuit against Novation Companies, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and its individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment
banks and credit rating agencies.  The case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.  On August 31, 2009,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims,
which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011,
and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.  On March 29,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint
with prejudice and without leave to replead.  The plaintiff filed
an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case.  Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court holding that the
plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, on
securities in which plaintiff had not invested and remanded the
case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company says it
cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss.  The Company
believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.

Novation Companies, Inc. -- http://www.novationcompanies.com/--
is a Maryland corporation formed in 1996 and is based in Kansas
City, Missouri.  Prior to May 23, 2012, Novation was NovaStar
Financial, Inc.  The name was changed to reflect the Company's
current business strategy of acquiring and operating technology-
enabled service businesses.


NRG ENERGY: Cheswick-Related Suit vs. GenOn Dismissed in October
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising from the operation of a Cheswick
generating facility, owned by NRG Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary, was
dismissed in October, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the previously
announced merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 20, 2012, by and among NRG, GenOn
Energy, Inc. and Plus Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NRG.

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

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Defends GenOn Merger-Related Suits in Del. and Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. is defending itself and its subsidiaries from
merger-related class action lawsuits pending in Delaware and
Texas, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the previously
announced merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 20, 2012, by and among NRG, GenOn
Energy, Inc. and Plus Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NRG.

During July and August 2012, GenOn, the members of its board of
directors, NRG, and Plus Merger Corporation were named defendants
in nine purported class action lawsuits filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, one of which has been dismissed
and the remainder of which were consolidated into one action (In
re GenOn Energy, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 7721-VCN).  In October 2012, GenOn signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle the Delaware consolidated action based on
additional disclosures that were provided to stockholders.

In July 2012, GenOn, the members of its board of directors, NRG,
and Plus Merger Corporation were also named defendants in three
purported class action lawsuits filed in the 189th District Court
of Harris County, Texas, which have been consolidated into one
action (Akel, et al. v. GenOn Energy, Inc., et al., Consolidated
Case No. 2012-42090) and one purported class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Bushansky v. GenOn Energy, Inc. et al., No. 4:12-CV-02257).
In October 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas issued an order granting the parties' joint
motion to stay the action until the later of the resolution of a
motion for injunction or the final settlement of the Delaware
consolidated action.

Each case was brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of
holders of GenOn's common stock, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.  The complaints allege, among other things, that (a)
the NRG Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary
duties by the individual defendants, in that it allegedly does not
maximize the value for GenOn stockholders and that the individual
defendants acted in their own self-interest in negotiating the
transaction, (b) the joint proxy statement contains incomplete and
misleading disclosures and (c) the other defendants aided and
abetted the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek, among other things, (a) a declaration that
the NRG Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the
defendants' duties, (b) to enjoin defendants from consummating the
NRG Merger, (c) directing the defendants to exercise their duties
to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of GenOn
stockholders, (d) granting the class members any benefits
allegedly improperly received by the defendants, (e) a rescission
of the NRG Merger if it is consummated and/or (f) an order
directing additional disclosure regarding the NRG Merger.

GenOn thinks that the allegations of the complaints are without
merit and that GenOn has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims made in these actions.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: GenOn Awaits Filing of Petition for Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary awaits the filing of a petition for
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court by the plaintiffs in
class action lawsuits arising from the California energy crisis in
2000 and 2001, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 8-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the previously
announced merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 20, 2012, by and among NRG, GenOn
Energy, Inc. and Plus Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NRG.

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

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  It is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


PITNEY BOWES: Court Dismisses NECA-IBEW Fraud Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant issued a memorandum of decision
granting a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the
lawsuit captioned NECA-IBEW HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
PITNEY BOWES INC., MURRAY D. MARTIN, and BRUCE NOLOP, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01740 (VLB), (D. Conn.).

Lead Plaintiff Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern
Canada brought the action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against Pitney Bowes Inc., Murray D. Martin,
and Bruce Nolop alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and occurring between
July 30, 2007 and October 29, 2007.  The Plaintiff styled the suit
as a fraud on the market action brought on behalf of all those who
purchased Pitney's common stock during the Class Period.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and for failure to plead fraud with specificity as
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

"In so far as Plaintiff has been given two opportunities to amend
its Complaint since this case was filed more than three years ago,
Plaintiff was aware of deficiencies in its first Amended Complaint
upon Defendants' filing of their first motion to dismiss in 2010
and filed its Second Amended Complaint in lieu of opposing that
motion, Plaintiff has been aware of the deficiencies in this
Second Amended Complaint since the instant motion to dismiss was
filed more than a year ago, Plaintiff has not sought leave to
amend the current Complaint, and other bases for dismissing the
Second Amended Complaint exist, the Court infers that further
leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint would be futile,"
ruled Judge Bryant.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed and the Clerk of court is
ordered to close the case and enter judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

A copy of the District Court's March 23, 2013 Memorandum of
Decision is available at http://is.gd/p0mybafrom Leagle.com.


QUANTA SERVICES: Suit vs. Insurers Over Cal. Wildfires Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc.'s lawsuit with respect to disputes with
insurers over coverage relating to lawsuits arising from two
California wildfires was dismissed in January 2013, according to
the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On June 18, 2010, PAR Electrical Contractors, Inc. (PAR), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Quanta, was named as a third party defendant
in four lawsuits in California state court in San Diego County,
California, all of which arise out of a wildfire in the San Diego
area that started on October 21, 2007, referred to as the Witch
Creek fire.  The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection issued a report concluding that the Witch Creek fire
was started when the conductors of a three phase 69kV transmission
line, known as TL 637, owned by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E),
touched each other, dropping sparks on dry grass.  The Witch Creek
fire, together with another wildfire referred to as the Guejito
fire that allegedly merged with the Witch Creek fire, burned a
reported 198,000 acres, over 1,500 homes and structures and is
alleged to have caused two deaths and numerous personal injuries.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed directly against SDG&E and its
parent company, Sempra, claiming SDG&E's power lines caused the
fire.  The court ordered that the claims be organized into the
four lawsuits and grouped the matters by type of plaintiff,
namely, insurance subrogation claimants, individual/business
claimants, governmental claimants, and a class action matter, for
which class certification has since been denied.  PAR is not named
as a direct defendant in any of these lawsuits against SDG&E or
its parent.  SDG&E has reportedly settled many of the claims.  On
June 18, 2010, SDG&E joined PAR to the four lawsuits as a third
party defendant, seeking contractual and equitable indemnification
for losses related to the Witch Creek fire.  SDG&E's claims for
indemnity relate to work done by PAR involving the replacement of
one pole on TL 637 about four months prior to the Witch Creek
fire.  While Quanta did not believe that the work done by PAR was
the cause of the contact between the conductors, PAR notified its
various insurers of the claims.  All but one of the insurers
contested coverage.  On August 5, 2011, PAR and Quanta filed a
lawsuit in California state court against those insurers seeking a
determination that coverage exists under the policies.

On November 5, 2012, PAR, Quanta, PAR's insurers and SDG&E entered
into a mutual settlement agreement pursuant to which SDG&E
released PAR, Quanta and PAR's insurers in exchange for payment by
PAR's insurers of a negotiated settlement amount and payment by
PAR of $33.8 million, of which $7.5 million had been previously
expensed, and $26.3 million was funded by an insurer as part of
the previously recorded $35.0 million liability and corresponding
insurance recovery receivable associated with a reimbursement-type
policy.  In the settlement, one other insurer reserved its rights
to contest coverage and seek reimbursement from PAR of the $25.0
million this insurer paid to SDG&E as part of the settlement.
That insurer subsequently agreed not to contest coverage or seek
reimbursement from PAR, and pursuant to mutual releases executed
by the parties, the coverage lawsuit was dismissed as to all
parties in January 2013.

Houston, Texas-based Quanta Services, Inc. --
http://www.quantaservices.com/-- is a provider of specialty
contracting services, offering infrastructure solutions primarily
to the electric power and natural gas and oil pipeline industries
in North America and in select international markets.  The Company
also owns fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure in select
markets and licenses the right to use these point-to-point fiber
optic telecommunications facilities to customers.


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmates Sue Over Inadequate Health Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Press-Enterprise reports that three Riverside County Jail
inmates have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging they are being
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the county through
denial of adequate mental and health care.

The lawsuit, filed in Riverside Federal Court, says the county
"has known for years that its inadequate health care delivery
system places prisoners entering the jails at a serious risk of
harm but has failed to take the necessary steps to mitigate the
risk.  As a result, prisoners in the Riverside jails are subjected
to policies and practices that systematically deprive them of
their constitutional right to basic life-saving care."

The lawsuit seeks granting of class-action status and for the
county to be ordered to develop and put in place "as soon as
practical, a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious
harm that Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class suffer due
to Defendant's inadequate medical and mental health care."

The jails are operated under the Sheriff's Department.

County officials were not immediately available for comment, but
had said previously they were concerned about such a lawsuit after
California's prison realignment sent more long-term inmates into
jails.  Those inmates previously would have been sent to state
prison, where there are more facilities and services for long-term
inmates.


SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Effective Date of Deal in Cryovac Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to await W. R. Grace & Co.'s
emergence from bankruptcy, when a settlement resolving class
action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of Sealed Air will become
effective, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 30, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step transaction
that brought the packaging business of its subsidiary Cryovac Inc.
and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business under the common
ownership of the Company.  These businesses operate as
subsidiaries of the Company, and the Company acts as a holding
company.  As part of that transaction, the parties separated the
Cryovac packaging business, which previously had been held by
various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company, from the
remaining businesses previously held by the Company.  The parties
then arranged for the contribution of these remaining businesses
to a company now known as W. R. Grace & Co., and the Company
distributed the Grace shares to the Company's stockholders.  As a
result, W. R. Grace & Co. became a separate publicly owned
company.  The Company recapitalized its outstanding shares of
common stock into a new common stock and a new convertible
preferred stock.  A subsidiary of the Company then merged into the
former Sealed Air Corporation, which became a subsidiary of the
Company and changed its name to Sealed Air Corporation (US).

In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its
subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their
operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or
occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than
liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac's operations.
Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating
to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by
Grace's subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including
its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn.,
which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace
since the Cryovac transaction.  The Cryovac transaction agreements
provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any
of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace
or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities,
Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend the Company.

Since the beginning of 2000, the Company has been served with a
number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged asbestos
liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also
named as co-defendants in some of these actions.  Among these
lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of
personal injury lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages for
personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.  Neither the former Sealed Air
Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the
asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these
cases.  None of these cases has reached resolution through
judgment, settlement or otherwise.  Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding has stayed all of these cases.

While the allegations in these actions directed to the Company
vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the
Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a
fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability.  Under a
theory of successor liability, plaintiffs with claims against
Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold the Company liable
for liabilities that arose with respect to activities conducted
prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. or
other Grace subsidiaries.  A transfer would be a fraudulent
transfer if the transferor received less than reasonably
equivalent value and the transferor was insolvent or was rendered
insolvent by the transfer, was engaged or was about to engage in a
business for which its assets constitute unreasonably small
capital, or intended to incur or believed that it would incur
debts beyond its ability to pay as they mature.  A transfer may
also be fraudulent if it was made with actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud creditors.  If a court found any transfers in
connection with the Cryovac transaction to be fraudulent
transfers, the Company could be required to return the property or
its value to the transferor or could be required to fund
liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries for the benefit of their
creditors, including asbestos claimants.  The Company has reached
an agreement in principle and subsequently signed the Settlement
agreement that is expected to resolve all these claims.

In the Joint Proxy Statement furnished to their respective
stockholders in connection with the Cryovac transaction, both
parties to the transaction stated that it was their belief that
Grace and its subsidiaries were adequately capitalized and would
be adequately capitalized after the Cryovac transaction and that
none of the transfers contemplated to occur in the Cryovac
transaction would be a fraudulent transfer.  They also stated
their belief that the Cryovac transaction complied with other
relevant laws.  However, if a court applying the relevant legal
standards had reached conclusions adverse to the Company, these
determinations could have had a materially adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and a number of its subsidiaries filed
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court").  Grace stated that the filing
was made in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos
claims since 1999.

In connection with its Chapter 11 filing, Grace filed an
application with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to stay, among
others, all actions brought against the Company and specified
subsidiaries related to alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and
its subsidiaries or alleging fraudulent transfer claims.  The
court issued an order dated May 3, 2001, which was modified on
January 22, 2002, under which the court stayed all the filed or
pending asbestos actions against the Company and, upon filing and
service on the Company, all future asbestos actions.  No further
proceedings involving the Company can occur in the actions that
have been stayed except upon further order of the Bankruptcy
Court.

Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace's
bankruptcy case received the court's permission to pursue
fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company and its
subsidiary Cryovac, Inc., and against Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc.  The claims against Fresenius are based upon a 1996
transaction between Fresenius and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn.
Fresenius is not affiliated with the Company.  In March 2002, the
court ordered that the issues of the solvency of Grace following
the Cryovac transaction and whether Grace received reasonably
equivalent value in the Cryovac transaction would be tried on
behalf of all of Grace's creditors.  This proceeding was brought
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"District Court") (Adv. No. 02-02210).

In June 2002, the court permitted the U.S. government to intervene
as a plaintiff in the fraudulent transfer proceeding, so that the
U.S. government could pursue allegations that environmental
remediation expenses were underestimated or omitted in the
solvency analyses of Grace conducted at the time of the Cryovac
transaction.  The court also permitted Grace, which asserted that
the Cryovac transaction was not a fraudulent transfer, to
intervene in the proceeding.  In July 2002, the court issued an
interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied in the trial,
holding, among other things, that, subject to specified
limitations, post-1998 claims should be considered in the solvency
analysis of Grace.  The Company believes that only claims and
liabilities that were known, or reasonably should have been known,
at the time of the 1998 Cryovac transaction should be considered
under the applicable standard.

With the fraudulent transfer trial set to commence on December 9,
2002, on November 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the Committees prosecuting the claims against the
Company and Cryovac, Inc., to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims arising from the Cryovac transaction.  On
the same day, the court entered an order confirming that the
parties had reached an amicable resolution of the disputes among
the parties and that counsel for the Company and the Committees
had agreed and bound the parties to the terms of the agreement in
principle.  The agreement in principle called for payment of nine
million shares of the Company's common stock and $513 million in
cash, plus interest on the cash payment at a 5.5% annual rate
starting on December 21, 2002, and ending on the effective date of
an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy,
when the Company is required to make the payment.  These shares
are subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for
the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events
affecting the Company's common stock, and as a result, the number
of shares of its common stock that the Company will issue
increased to eighteen million shares upon the two-for-one stock
split in March 2007.  On December 3, 2002, the Company's Board of
Directors approved the agreement in principle.  The Company
received notice that both of the Committees had approved the
agreement in principle as of December 5, 2002.  The parties
subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of
November 10, 2003, consistent with the terms of the agreement in
principle.  On November 26, 2003, the parties jointly presented
the definitive Settlement agreement to the District Court for
approval.  On Grace's motion to the District Court, that court
transferred the motion to approve the Settlement agreement to the
Bankruptcy Court for disposition.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving
the Settlement agreement.  Although Grace is not a party to the
Settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is
directed to comply with the Settlement agreement subject to
limited exceptions.  The order also provides that the Court will
retain jurisdiction over any dispute involving the interpretation
or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Settlement
agreement.  The Company expects that the Settlement agreement will
become effective upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy pursuant
to a plan of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of
the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the District
Court, where the fraudulent transfer trial was pending, requesting
that the court vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal
standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims
against the Company.  The Company was not challenging the
Settlement agreement.  The motion was filed as a protective
measure in the event that the Settlement agreement is ultimately
not approved or implemented; however, the Company still expects
that the Settlement agreement will become effective upon Grace's
emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization that is
consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement.

On July 11, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing
the proceeding brought in 2002 by the committees appointed to
represent asbestos claimants in the Grace bankruptcy proceeding
against the Company without prejudice to the Company's right to
reopen the matter and renew in the Company's sole discretion its
motion to vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal
standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims
against the Company.

As a condition to the Company's obligation to make the payments
required by the Settlement agreement, any final plan of
reorganization must be consistent with the terms of the Settlement
agreement, including provisions for the trusts and releases and
for an injunction barring the prosecution of any asbestos-related
claims against the Company.  The Settlement agreement provides
that, upon the effective date of the final plan of reorganization
and payment of the shares and cash, all present and future
asbestos-related claims against the Company that arise from
alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its affiliates
(including former affiliates that became the Company's affiliates
through the Cryovac transaction) will be channeled to and become
the responsibility of one or more trusts to be established under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code as part of a final plan of
reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy.  The Settlement agreement
will also resolve all fraudulent transfer claims against the
Company arising from the Cryovac transaction as well as the
Fresenius claims.  The Settlement agreement provides that the
Company will receive releases of all those claims upon payment.
Under the agreement, the Company cannot seek indemnity from Grace
for the Company's payments required by the Settlement agreement.
The order approving the Settlement agreement also provides that
the stay of proceedings involving the Company will continue
through the effective date of the final plan of reorganization,
after which, upon implementation of the Settlement agreement, the
Company will be released from the liabilities asserted in those
proceedings and their continued prosecution against the Company
will be enjoined.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization
(the "Grace Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court.  There were a number
of objections filed.  The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants (the "ACC") and the Asbestos PI Future Claimants'
Representative (the "PI FCR") filed their proposed plan of
reorganization (the "Claimants' Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court
in November 2007.  On April 7, 2008, Grace issued a press release
announcing that Grace, the ACC, the PI FCR, and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Committee") had
reached an agreement in principle to settle all present and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims against Grace (the "PI
Settlement") and disclosed a term sheet outlining certain terms of
the PI Settlement and for a contemplated plan of reorganization
that would incorporate the PI Settlement (as filed and amended
from time to time, the "PI Settlement Plan").

On September 19, 2008, Grace, the ACC, the PI FCR, and the Equity
Committee filed, as co-proponents, the PI Settlement Plan and
several exhibits and associated documents, including a disclosure
statement (as filed and amended from time to time, the "PI
Settlement Disclosure Statement"), with the Bankruptcy Court.
Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and the PI Settlement
Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court
from time to time.  The PI Settlement Plan, which supersedes each
of the Grace Plan and the Claimants' Plan, remains pending and has
not become effective.  The committee representing general
unsecured creditors and the Official Committee of Asbestos
Property Damage Claimants are not co-proponents of the PI
Settlement Plan.  As filed, the PI Settlement Plan would provide
for the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g)
of the United States Bankruptcy Code to which present and future
asbestos-related claims would be channeled.  The PI Settlement
Plan also contemplates that the terms of the Settlement agreement
will be incorporated into the PI Settlement Plan and that the
Company will pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement
agreement.  On March 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order approving the PI Settlement Disclosure Statement (the "DS
Order") as containing adequate information and authorizing Grace
to solicit votes to accept or reject the PI Settlement Plan.  The
DS Order did not constitute the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of
the PI Settlement Plan, approval of the merits of the PI
Settlement Plan, or endorsement of the PI Settlement Plan.  In
connection with the plan voting process in the Grace bankruptcy
case, the Company voted in favor of the PI Settlement Plan that
was before the Bankruptcy Court.  The Company will continue to
review any amendments to the PI Settlement Plan on an ongoing
basis to verify compliance with the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2009, a senior manager with the voting agent appointed
in the Grace bankruptcy case filed a declaration with the
Bankruptcy Court certifying the voting results with respect to the
PI Settlement Plan.  This declaration was amended on
August 5, 2009 (as amended, the "Voting Declaration").  According
to the Voting Declaration, with respect to each class of claims
designated as impaired by Grace, the PI Settlement Plan was
approved by holders of at least two-thirds in amount and more than
one-half in number (or for classes voting for purposes of Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, at least 75% in number) of voted
claims.  The Voting Declaration also discusses the voting results
with respect to holders of general unsecured claims ("GUCs")
against Grace, whose votes were provisionally solicited and
counted subject to a determination by the Bankruptcy Court of
whether GUCs are impaired (and, thus, entitled to vote) or, as
Grace contends, unimpaired (and, thus, not entitled to vote).
According to the Voting Declaration, more than one half of voting
holders of GUCs voted to accept the PI Settlement Plan, but the
provisional vote did not obtain the requisite two-thirds dollar
amount to be deemed an accepting class in the event that GUCs are
determined to be impaired.  To the extent that GUCs are determined
to be an impaired non-accepting class, Grace and the other plan
proponents have indicated that they would nevertheless seek
confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan under the "cram down"
provisions contained in Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum
opinion (as amended, the "Bankruptcy Court Opinion") overruling
certain objections to the PI Settlement Plan and finding, among
other things, that GUCs are not impaired under the PI Settlement
Plan. On the same date, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
regarding confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan (as amended, the
"Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order").  As entered on
January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order
contained recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
recommended that the District Court approve the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order, and that the District Court confirm the PI
Settlement Plan and issue a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Thereafter, on
February 15, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order clarifying
the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation
Order (the "Clarifying Order").  Among other things, the
Clarifying Order provided that any references in the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order to a
recommendation that the District Court confirm the PI Settlement
Plan were thereby amended to make clear that the PI Settlement
Plan was confirmed and that the Bankruptcy Court was requesting
that the District Court issue and affirm the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order including the injunction under Section 524(g)
of the Bankruptcy Code.  On March 11, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to
reconsider the Bankruptcy Court Opinion filed by BNSF Railway
Company (the "March 11 Order").  Among other things, the March 11
Order amended the Bankruptcy Court Opinion to clarify certain
matters relating to objections to the PI Settlement Plan filed by
BNSF.

Various parties appealed or otherwise challenged the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order,
including without limitation with respect to issues relating to
releases and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan.  On
June 28 and 29, 2011, the District Court heard oral arguments in
connection with appeals of the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order.

On January 30, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum
opinion (the "Original District Court Opinion") and confirmation
order (the "Original District Court Confirmation Order")
overruling all objections to the PI Settlement Plan and confirming
the PI Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of
the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).  On
February 3, 2012, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("Garlock")
filed a motion (the "Garlock Reargument Motion") with the District
Court requesting that the District Court grant reargument,
rehearing, or otherwise amend the Original District Court Opinion
and the Original District Court Confirmation Order insofar as they
overruled Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement Plan.  On
February 13, 2012, the Company, Cryovac, and Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc. filed a joint motion (the "Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion") with the District Court.  The Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion did not seek to disturb confirmation of the
PI Settlement Plan but requested that the District Court amend and
clarify certain matters in the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order.  Also on February
13, 2012, Grace and the other proponents of the PI Settlement Plan
filed a motion (the "Plan Proponents' Motion") with the District
Court requesting certain of the same amendments and clarifications
sought by the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion.  On February 27, 2012,
certain asbestos claimants known as the "Libby Claimants" filed a
response to the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion and the Plan
Proponents' Motion (the "Libby Response").  The Libby Response did
not oppose the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the Plan Proponents'
Motion but indicated, among other things, that: (a) the Libby
Claimants had reached a settlement in principle of their
objections to the PI Settlement Plan but that this settlement had
not become effective and (b) the Libby Claimants reserved their
rights with respect to the PI Settlement Plan pending the
effectiveness of the Libby Claimants' settlement.  On April 20,
2012, as part of a more global settlement, Grace filed a motion
with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, among other things, approval of
settlements with the Libby Claimants and BNSF.  The settlements
with the Libby Claimants and BNSF were approved by order of the
Bankruptcy Court dated June 6, 2012.  Thereafter, the appeals of
the Libby Claimants and BNSF with respect to the PI Settlement
Plan were dismissed by orders of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of
Appeals") dated September 24, 2012, and October 4, 2012.  The
District Court held a hearing on May 8, 2012, to consider the
Garlock Reargument Motion.  On May 29, 2012, Anderson Memorial
Hospital ("Anderson Memorial") filed a motion seeking relief from,
and reconsideration of, the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order (the "Anderson
Relief Motion").  In the Anderson Relief Motion, Anderson Memorial
argued that a May 18, 2012, decision by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in a case called Wright v. Owens-Corning undermined the
District Court's conclusion that (a) the PI Settlement Plan was
feasible and (b) the asbestos property damage injunction and trust
included in the PI Settlement Plan were appropriate.  Objections
to the Anderson Relief Motion were filed by Grace and the other
proponents of the PI Settlement Plan, and by the representative of
future asbestos property damage claimants appointed in the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings.  On June 11, 2012, the District Court
entered a consolidated order (the "Consolidated Order") granting
the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion, the Plan Proponents' Motion, and
the Garlock Reargument Motion, and providing for amendments to the
Original District Court Opinion and the Original District Court
Confirmation Order.  Although the Consolidated Order granted the
Garlock Reargument Motion, it did not constitute the District
Court's agreement with Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement
Plan, which the District Court continued to overrule.  Also on
June 11, 2012, the District Court entered an amended memorandum
opinion (the "Amended District Court Opinion") and confirmation
order (the "Amended District Court Confirmation Order") overruling
all objections to the PI Settlement Plan, reflecting amendments
described in the Consolidated Order, and confirming the PI
Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of the
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).
Thereafter, on July 23, 2012, the District Court issued a
memorandum opinion and an order denying the Anderson Relief
Motion.

Parties have appealed the Amended District Court Opinion and the
Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Parties have filed briefs in connection with
the appeals but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not
scheduled any hearing for oral argument with respect to the
appeals and it is uncertain whether any such hearing will be
scheduled or, if scheduled, the timing for such a hearing.
Although Grace publicly indicated its intent to seek to emerge
from bankruptcy before the appeals are fully and finally resolved,
it subsequently indicated that it was not able to receive the
necessary consents and waivers to do so, including from the
Company.  Although Grace has in the past indicated that, with an
appeals process before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, its
target date to emerge from bankruptcy was the fourth quarter of
2013, the Company cannot assure you that this timing for emergence
is or will be correct or that the target date for Grace's
emergence has not been or will not be revised.

Consistent with its Settlement agreement, the Company says it is
prepared to pay the Settlement amount directly to the asbestos
trusts to be established under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code once the conditions of the Settlement agreement are fully
satisfied.  Among those conditions is that approval of an
appropriate Grace bankruptcy plan -- containing all releases,
injunctions, and protections required by the Settlement agreement
-- be final and not subject to any appeal.  Given the pending
appeals (which include, without limitation, challenges to the
injunctions and releases in the PI Settlement Plan), the condition
that approval of the PI Settlement Plan be final and not subject
to any appeal has not been satisfied at this time.  The Company
has not waived this or any other condition of the Settlement
agreement nor can there be any assurance that each of the parties
whose consent or waiver is required for Grace to emerge from
bankruptcy while the appeals are pending will provide such consent
or waiver.  Although the Company is optimistic that, if it were to
become effective, the PI Settlement Plan would implement the terms
of the Settlement agreement, the Company can give no assurance
that this will be the case notwithstanding the confirmation of the
PI Settlement Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.
The terms of the PI Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment.
Moreover, the PI Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of
a number of conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI
Settlement Plan and include, without limitation, the availability
of exit financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan
becoming final and no longer subject to appeal.  As noted, parties
have appealed the Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals or have otherwise challenged the
Amended District Court Opinion and the Amended District Court
Confirmation Order.  Matters relating to the PI Settlement Plan,
the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Opinions, and the
Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation Orders may be
subject to further appeal, challenge, and proceedings before the
District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or other
courts.  Parties have challenged various issues with respect to
the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions, or the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Confirmation Orders, including, without limitation, issues
relating to releases and injunctions contained in the PI
Settlement Plan.

While the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have confirmed
the PI Settlement Plan, the Company does not know whether or when
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will affirm the Amended
District Court Confirmation Order or the Amended District Court
Opinion, whether or when the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions or the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation
Orders will become final and no longer subject to appeal, or
whether or when a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI
Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) will become
effective.  Assuming that a final plan of reorganization (whether
the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) is
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and does
become effective, the Company does not know whether the final plan
of reorganization will be consistent with the terms of the
Settlement agreement or if the other conditions to the Company's
obligation to pay the Settlement agreement amount will be met.  If
these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by the Company,
the Company will not be obligated to pay the amount contemplated
by the Settlement agreement.  However, if the Company does not pay
the Settlement agreement amount, the Company will not be released
from the various asbestos related, fraudulent transfer, successor
liability, and indemnification claims made against the Company and
all of these claims would remain pending and would have to be
resolved through other means, such as through agreement on
alternative settlement terms or trials.  In that case, the Company
could face liabilities that are significantly different from its
obligations under the Settlement agreement.  The Company cannot
estimate at this time what those differences or their magnitude
may be.  In the event these liabilities are materially larger than
the current existing obligations, they could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition
and results of operations.  The Company will continue to review
and monitor the progress of the Grace bankruptcy proceedings
(including appeals and other proceedings relating to the PI
Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Confirmation Orders), as well as any amendments or changes to the
PI Settlement Plan or to Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions and Confirmation Orders, to verify compliance with the
Settlement agreement.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corporation
-- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a Delaware corporation founded
in 1960.  The Company is a global leader in food safety and
security, facility hygiene and product protection with widely
recognized and inventive brands such as Bubble Wrap(R) brand
cushioning, Cryovac(R) brand food packaging solutions and
Diversey(R) brand cleaning and hygiene solutions.


SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Settlement in Canada to Become Effective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is still waiting for a settlement resolving
class actions in Canada naming it as a defendant to become
effective, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 31, 1998, Sealed Air completed a multi-step transaction
(the "Cryovac transaction") involving W.R. Grace & Co. ("Grace"),
which brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed
Air's business under the common ownership of the Company.  As part
of that transaction, Grace and its subsidiaries retained all
liabilities arising out of their operations before the Cryovac
transaction (including asbestos-related liabilities), other than
liabilities relating to Cryovac's operations, and agreed to
indemnify the Company with respect to such retained liabilities.

Since November 2004, the Company and specified subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in a number of cases, including a number
of putative class actions, brought in Canada as a result of
Grace's alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing of
asbestos or asbestos containing products in Canada prior to the
Cryovac transaction in 1998.  Grace has agreed to defend and
indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases.  The
Canadian cases are currently stayed.  A global settlement of these
Canadian claims to be funded by Grace has been approved by the
Canadian court, and the PI Settlement Plan provides for payment of
these claims.  The Company says it does not have any positive
obligations under the Canadian settlement, but it is a beneficiary
of the release of claims.  The release in favor of the Grace
parties (including the Company) will become operative upon the
effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United
States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in Delaware.

As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims
released under the Canadian settlement will be subject to
injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011, and the
Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011, and the District Court
entered the Original District Court Confirmation Order on
January 30, 2012, and the Amended District Court Confirmation
Order on June 11, 2012.  The Canadian Court issued an Order on
April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy
Court's Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of
Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation
Order's terms.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI Settlement Plan has not
become effective, and the Company can give no assurance that the
PI Settlement Plan (or any other plan of reorganization) will
become effective.  Assuming that a final plan of reorganization
(whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization)
is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and
does become effective, if the final plan of reorganization does
not incorporate the terms of the Canadian settlement or if the
Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization
in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in
these cases, then the Company could be required to pay substantial
damages, which the Company cannot estimate at this time and which
could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corporation
-- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a Delaware corporation founded
in 1960.  The Company is a global leader in food safety and
security, facility hygiene and product protection with widely
recognized and inventive brands such as Bubble Wrap(R) brand
cushioning, Cryovac(R) brand food packaging solutions and
Diversey(R) brand cleaning and hygiene solutions.


SHEILA MORRISON: Ontario Court Approves $4-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on March 19 disclosed that on March 12, 2013,
the Honourable Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice approved the $4 million settlement of Sheila Morrison
Schools class action.  The action involved allegations of abuse of
students at the school from its opening in 1977 to its closure in
2009.

The Sheila Morrison School was a private school located in Utopia,
near Barrie, Ontario.  The school was primarily directed at
students with learning disabilities, behavioral issues or special
needs. The school closed in 2009.

Justice Perell found that the settlement was fair, reasonable and
in the best interests of the class members, particularly in light
of the risks if the action continued: "[i]n my opinion, having
regard to very substantial risk factors and the considerably [sic]
difficulties associated with recovering insurance proceeds, the
settlement achieved is a very good result for the class members."

The claims process has begun. Former students of Sheila Morrison
Schools may complete a claims form seeking compensation from the
settlement funds. Former students should send their claims to the
claims administrator, Crawford Class Action Services, by no later
than June 11, 2013.


SKECHERS USA: "Angell" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Jason Angell v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada,
Inc., remains pending in Montreal, Canada, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal.  Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear.  Petitioner's motion alleges that the Company
has marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading
advertisements and representations about the products' ability to
provide health benefits to users.  The motion requests the Court's
authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.  Petitioner's motion was formally presented to
the Court on June 29, 2012.  A presiding judge has not yet been
assigned to the case.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
results of operations or financial position, the Company believes
it has meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations,
believes that authorization of a class action is not warranted and
intends to defend the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Approval of Deal to Resolve "Hochberg" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement that
will also resolve all the class claims in the lawsuit brought by
Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum, according to the Company's March
1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On November 23, 2011, Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum filed a
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV11-5751.  The
complaint, captioned Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., alleges, on their behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates the New York Consumer Protection Act, and is resulting in
unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks certification of a
statewide class, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 16, 2012, this
action was ordered transferred to the multidistrict litigation
proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On August 13, 2012,
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action
settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a
preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this
action.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions, if
finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event
an appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the class
claims brought by the plaintiff in Hochberg.

If the motion to grant final approval of the class action
settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is denied or
approval is reversed on appeal, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of the Hochberg action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Hochberg action would have a
material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial position in excess of the existing $50 million
settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final Approval of "Morga" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a class action lawsuit filed by Venus Morga, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 25, 2010, Venus Morga filed an action captioned Venus
Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
Case No. 10 CV 1780 JM (MDD), on her behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.  The complaint, as subsequently
amended, alleges that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and constitutes a breach of express
warranty. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class,
damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and
injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On March 7, 2011, the Court stayed the action on the
ground that the outcomes in pending appeals in two unrelated
actions will significantly affect whether a class should be
certified.  On April 16, 2012, this action was transferred to the
multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in the Western
District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On May 16, 2012, the
plaintiff in Grabowski, her counsel, and counsel for the plaintiff
in Morga filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement reached as part of the global settlement of
advertising-related claims.  The Court held a hearing on the
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement on
July 24, August 3, and August 10, 2012.  On August 13 and 17,
2012, the Court issued orders preliminarily approving the
settlement and scheduled a hearing date for final approval on
March 19, 2013.

On December 28, 2012, the plaintiffs in Grabowski/Morga filed a
motion for final approval of the class action settlement.  If the
Court grants final approval of the class action settlement, and
the Court's decision is affirmed in the event of an appeal, the
settlement will resolve all domestic civil claims concerning the
Company's advertising of its toning shoes that were or could have
been brought by the class of consumers, as defined in the
settlement agreement, including the class claims asserted in the
Grabowski, Stalker, Tomlinson, Hochberg, Loss, Boatright and
Scovil actions.

While the Company expects the Court to grant final approval of the
class action settlement, there are multiple class actions in
several jurisdictions and the Company cannot predict the outcome
of the approval motions.  If the motion to grant final approval of
the class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, the Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the
remaining advertising class actions or a reasonable range of
potential losses or whether the outcome of the remaining
advertising class actions would have a material adverse impact on
the Company's results of operations or financial position in
excess of the existing $50 million settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Resolve "Boatright" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement,
which will resolve all claims in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Elma Boatright and Sharon White, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S.  The
lawsuit is captioned Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group.
The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for
Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a breach
of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and
resulting in unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks certification
of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion
to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR.  On
August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer
class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions,
and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued
prosecution of this action.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga
class actions, if finally approved by the Court and affirmed on
appeal in the event an appeal is taken, is expected entirely to
resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright.

If the motion to grant final approval of the class action
settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is denied or
approval is reversed on appeal, the Company says it cannot predict
the outcome of the Boatright action or a reasonable range of
potential losses or whether the outcome of the Boatright action
would have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial position in excess of the existing $50
million settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Final Approval of "Scovil" Suit Accord Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. awaiting final approval of a settlement that
will also resolve all claims in the lawsuit filed by Michele
Scovil, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On April 25, 2012, Michele Scovil filed a lawsuit captioned
Michele Scovil v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., against the Company in
the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-12660756-
C.  Plaintiff alleges that she suffered physical injuries that she
attributes to the allegedly defective design of Shape-ups, and
plaintiff asserts, in her individual capacity, claims for
negligence, products liability, strict liability, and breach of
warranty.  In addition, plaintiff also purports to bring a class
action on behalf of all persons in Nevada who purchased Shape-ups
shoes at retail, and seeks class certification on her claims for
alleged violations of the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages, restitution,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On July 12,
2012, this action was transferred to the multidistrict litigation
proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On August 13, 2012,
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action
settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a
preliminary injunction that enjoins the continued prosecution of
this action.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions,
if finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the
event an appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Scovil.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the remaining
claims asserted in this litigation or a reasonable range of
potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a
material adverse impact on its results of operations or financial
position, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses,
vehemently denies the allegations, believes that class
certification is not warranted and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  If the motion to grant final approval of the class
action settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is denied
or approval is reversed on appeal, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of the Scovil action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Scovil action would have a
material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial position in excess of the existing $50 million
settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Resolve "Stalker" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement,
which is expected to also resolve the class claims brought by
Sonia Stalker, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 2, 2010, Sonia Stalker filed an action captioned Sonia
Stalker v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The complaint seeks certification of
a nationwide class, actual and punitive damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On July 23, 2010, the Company removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and it is now pending as Sonia Stalker v.
Skechers USA, Inc., CV 10-5460 JAK (JEM).  On January 21, 2011,
the District Court stayed this case pending resolution of the
Grabowski action.  On May 16, 2012, this action was ordered
transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On August 13, 2012, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement
agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and scheduled a hearing
date for final approval on March 19, 2013.  The Court also issued
a preliminary injunction further enjoining prosecution of this
action.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions, if
finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event
an appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the class
claims brought by the plaintiff in Stalker.  If the motion to
grant final approval of the class action settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, the Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the
Stalker action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Stalker action would have a material
adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
position in excess of the existing $50 million settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final Approval of "Tomlinson" Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement that
will also resolve the class claims in the lawsuit filed by Patty
Tomlinson, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Case
No. CV11-121-7.  The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, that the Company's
advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied
warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson
action").  The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On February 18, 2011, the Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, where it was pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042 JLH.

On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action back
to Arkansas state court, which motion the Company opposed.  On May
25, 2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state
court and denied the Company's motion to dismiss or transfer as
moot, but stayed the remand pending completion of appellate
review.  On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay
and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Arkansas.  On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the
state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case.  The
settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions, if finally
approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an
appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the class claims
brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson.

On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga
actions, and scheduled a hearing date for final approval on
March 19, 2013.  The Court also issued a preliminary injunction
enjoining the continued prosecution of this action.  If the motion
to grant final approval of the class action settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, the Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the
Tomlinson action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Tomlinson action would have a material
adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
position in excess of the existing $50 million settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final OK of Accord in Ky. Toning Shoes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a nationwide consumer class action relating to toning shoes in
Kentucky, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company's claims and advertising for its toning products
including for its Shape-ups are subject to the requirements of,
and routinely come under review by regulators including the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), states' Attorneys General and
government and quasi-government regulators in foreign countries.
The Company is currently responding to requests for information
regarding its claims and advertising from regulatory and quasi-
regulatory agencies in several countries and are fully cooperating
with those requests.  While the Company believes that its claims
and advertising with respect to its core toning products are
supported by scientific tests, expert opinions and other relevant
data, and while the Company has been successful in defending its
claims and advertising in several different countries, the Company
has discontinued using certain test results and the Company
periodically reviews and updates its claims and advertising.  The
regulatory inquiries may conclude in a variety of outcomes,
including the closing of the inquiry with no further regulatory
action, settlement of any issues through changes in its claims and
advertising, settlement of any issues through payment to the
regulatory entity, or litigation.

The FTC and Attorneys General for 44 states and the District of
Columbia ("SAGs") had been reviewing the claims and advertising
for Shape-ups and the Company's other toning shoe products.  The
Company also disclosed that it has been named as a defendant in
multiple consumer class actions challenging the Company's claims
and advertising for the Company's toning shoe products, including
Shape-ups.  As the Company disclosed in its annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and in the Company's
subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, the Company recorded a
charge of $50 million during the fourth quarter ended
December 31, 2011, to reserve for costs and potential other
exposures relating to the existing litigation and regulatory
matters.

On May 16, 2012, the Company announced that it had settled all
domestic legal proceedings relating to advertising claims made in
connection with the marketing of the Company's toning shoe
products.  Under the terms of the global settlement -- without
admitting any fault or liability, with no findings being made that
the Company had violated any law, and with no fines or penalties
being imposed -- the Company made payments in the aggregate amount
of $45 million and expect to pay up to $5 million in class action
attorneys' fees to settle the domestic advertising class lawsuits
and related claims brought by the FTC and the SAGs.  The FTC
Stipulated Final Judgment was approved by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 12, 2012.
Consent judgments in the 45 SAG actions have been approved and
entered by courts in those jurisdictions.  On August 13 and 17,
2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky issued orders that preliminarily approved a nationwide
consumer class action settlement and scheduled a hearing date for
final approval on March 19, 2013.

On November 8, 2012, the Company was served with a Grand Jury
Subpoena ("Subpoena") for documents and information relating to
the Company's past advertising claims for the Company's toning
footwear, including Shape-ups and Resistance Runners.  The
Subpoena was issued by a Grand Jury of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in Cleveland, Ohio.  The
Subpoena seeks documents and information related to outside
studies conducted on the Company's toning footwear.  This Subpoena
appears to grow out of the FTC's inquiry into the Company's claims
and advertising for Shape-ups and its other toning shoe products,
which the Company settled with the FTC, State Attorneys' General
and consumer class as part of a global settlement.  The Grand Jury
investigation is in its early stages and the Company is fully
cooperating and in the process of producing documents and other
information requested in the Subpoena.  The Assistant United
States Attorney has informed the Company that neither the Company
nor its employees are targets at the present time.  Although the
Company does not believe this matter will have a material adverse
impact on its results of operations or financial position, it is
too early to predict the timing and outcome of this matter or
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.

The toning footwear category, including the Company's Shape-ups
products, has also been the subject of some media attention
arising from a number of consumer complaints and lawsuits alleging
injury while wearing Shape-ups.  The Company believes its products
are safe and is defending itself from these media stories and
injury lawsuits.  The Company says it is too early to predict the
outcome of any case or inquiry, whether there will be future
personal injury cases filed, whether adverse results in any single
case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on
the Company's results of operations or financial position, and
whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Final Approval of "Grabowski" Suit Accord Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a class action lawsuit commenced by Tamara Grabowski, according to
the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On June 18, 2010, Tamara Grabowski filed an action, captioned
Tamara Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Case No. 10 CV 1300 JM (MDD), on her behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint, as
subsequently amended, alleges that the Company's advertising for
Shape-ups violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and constitutes a breach
of express warranty (the "Grabowski action").  The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, damages, restitution and
disgorgement of profits, declaratory and injunctive relief,
corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 7, 2011, the Court stayed the action on the ground that
the outcomes in pending appeals in two unrelated actions will
significantly affect whether a class should be certified.  On
April 16, 2012, this action was transferred to the multidistrict
litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers
Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On May
16, 2012, the plaintiff in Grabowski, her counsel, and counsel for
the plaintiff in the Morga action filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement reached as part of the
global settlement of advertising-related claims.  The Court held
hearings on the motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement on July 24, August 3, and August 10, 2012.  On
August 13 and 17, 2012, the Court issued orders preliminarily
approving the settlement and scheduled a hearing date for final
approval on March 19, 2013.  On December 28, 2012, the plaintiffs
in the Grabowski/Morga actions filed a motion for final approval
of the class action settlement.

If the Court grants final approval of the class action settlement,
and the Court's decision is affirmed in the event of an appeal,
the settlement will resolve all domestic civil claims concerning
the Company's advertising of its toning shoes that were or could
have been brought by the class of consumers, as defined in the
settlement agreement, including the class claims asserted in the
Stalker, Morga, Tomlinson, Hochberg, Loss, Boatright and Scovil
actions.  While the Company expects the Court to grant final
approval of the class action settlement, there are multiple class
actions in several jurisdictions and the Company cannot predict
the final outcome of the approval motions.  If the motion to grant
final approval of the class action settlement is denied or
approval is reversed on appeal, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of the remaining advertising class actions or a reasonable
range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the remaining
advertising class actions would have a material adverse impact on
the Company's results of operations or financial position in
excess of the existing $50 million settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Awaits Final Okay of Deal to Resolve "Loss" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement,
which will also resolve the claims in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Shannon Loss, Kayla Hedges and Donald Horner,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 12, 2012, Shannon Loss, Kayla Hedges and Donald Horner
filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-78-H.
The lawsuit is captioned Shannon Loss, Kayla Hedges and Donald
Horner v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and
Skechers Fitness Group.  The complaint alleges, on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that the
Company's advertising for Shape-ups is false and misleading,
thereby constituting a breach of contract, breach of implied and
express warranties, and resulting in unjust enrichment.  The
complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, compensatory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On March 9, 2012, the
named plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with In
re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no.
11-md-02308-TBR.  On August 13, 2012, the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary
approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the
Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction
enjoining the continued prosecution of this action.  The
settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions, if finally
approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an
appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the class claims
brought by the plaintiff in Loss.

If the motion to grant final approval of the class action
settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is denied or
approval is reversed on appeal, the Company says it cannot predict
the outcome of the Loss action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Loss action would have a
material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial position in excess of the existing $50 million
settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Defends "Chavez" Wage and Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is defending itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit filed by Esteban Chavez in California,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 18, 2012, Esteban Chavez filed a class action
lawsuit, captioned Esteban Chavez v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC492357,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, non-compliant wage statements, and
wages not timely paid upon termination.  The complaint seeks
actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages; general
and special damages; civil, statutory and waiting time penalties;
restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees
and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid compensation; and
appointment of a receiver.

On September 25, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the
action until an initial status conference that was held on
December 19, 2012.  While it is too early to predict the outcome
of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and
whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on
the Company's results of operations or financial position, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses, vehemently denies
the allegations, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Defends "Davies" Class Suit in Alberta, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is defending a purported class action lawsuit
styled Brenda Davies v. Skechers U.S.A, Inc., Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc. pending in Alberta,
Canada, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear.
The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users.  The Statement of Claim seeks damages
(including damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.  Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim.  While it is too early to predict the
outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential
losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse
impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
position, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses,
vehemently denies the allegations, believes that authorization of
a class action is not warranted and intends to defend the case
vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Defends "Dedato" Class Suit in Ontario, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is defending a purported class action lawsuit
styled Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A.
Canada, Inc., pending in Ontario, Canada, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runner footwear.  The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.  Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim.  While it is too early to predict the
outcome of any litigation or a reasonable range of potential
losses should a claim be filed and whether an adverse result would
have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial position, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, believes
that authorization of a class action is not warranted and intends
to defend the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Defends "Niras" Class Suit in Ontario, Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit brought by George Niras in Ontario, Canada, according to
the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups.  The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users.  The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement.  The lawsuit is
captioned George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.  While it is too early to
predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of
potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a
material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial position, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, believes that
authorization of a class action is not warranted and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Defends "Sayles" Wage and Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. is defending itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit commenced by Roneshia Sayles in California,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles filed a class action lawsuit
captioned Roneshia Sayles v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC473067.  The complaint involves
a wage and hour claim, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code, including unpaid time for certain breaks and when retail
employees' bags are checked upon leaving the store at the ends of
their shifts.  The complaint seeks actual, consequential and
incidental losses and damages; general and special damages; civil,
statutory and waiting time penalties; restitution of unpaid wages;
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; pre-judgment
interest on unpaid compensation.  On September 25, 2012, the Court
issued an order staying the action until an initial status
conference that was held on December 19, 2012.  While it is too
early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable
range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have
a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations
or financial position, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, and intends to defend
the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Lovston" Suit Directed to Mediate
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
ordered the parties in the lawsuit styled Terena Lovston v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., to mediation, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On May 13, 2011, Terena Lovston filed a lawsuit against the
Company in Circuit Court in Lonoke County, Arkansas, Case No. CV-
11-321.  The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for its
toning footwear products violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and is resulting in unjust enrichment.  The
complaint seeks certification of a statewide class and
compensatory damages.  On June 3, 2011, the Company removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, where it was pending as Terena Lovston v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., 4:11-cv-0460.  On August 5, 2011, the District Court
issued an order staying the case pending completion of the
appellate process in the Tomlinson action.  On July 12, 2012, the
district court ordered the Lovston case remanded to Arkansas state
court, and on or about July 26, 2012, the plaintiff filed a
renewed motion in the State Circuit Court for certification of a
class of Arkansas residents who purchased the Company's toning
footwear products.  On August 10, 2012, the Circuit Court issued
an order staying the Lovston case in light of the class action
settlement in the Grabowski/Moraga actions.  On November 8, 2012,
as allowed under the Circuit Court's stay order, the plaintiff
gave notice that she intended to lift the stay and to proceed with
the action by an amended complaint.

On November 27, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in which Ms.
Lovston abandoned her class action allegations, asserted a new
personal injury claim, and added eight new plaintiffs with
personal injury claims.  On December 20, 2012, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the new plaintiffs' claims for improper venue,
to strike the amended complaint, or to sever and transfer the new
plaintiffs' claims to their home counties in Arkansas.

On February 11, 2013, the state Circuit Court took that motion and
several discovery motions under submission and ordered the parties
to mediation.  No trial date has been set.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
results of operations or financial position, the Company believes
it has meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations,
and intends to defend the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


STANDARD FIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Knowles Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court put new constraints on class-action lawsuits, siding
with a Travelers Cos. unit and undercutting what companies say is
a favorite tactic used by trial lawyers to steer cases to friendly
courts.

Under the disputed approach, lawyers agree not to seek more than
$5 million -- the threshold that sends class-action suits to
federal court under a 2005 U.S. law.

The high court on March 19 unanimously said that type of
"stipulation" isn't grounds for forcing a case into state court,
where plaintiffs often fare better.  Writing for the court,
Justice Stephen Breyer said those stipulations have limited impact
because they aren't binding on other potential plaintiffs.

Allowing the tactic would "exalt form over substance," Justice
Breyer wrote.  "It would also have the effect of allowing the
subdivision of a $100 million action into 21 just-below-$5-
million state-court actions simply by including nonbinding
stipulations."

The ruling focused on the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act, which
put curbs on group litigation, largely by funneling more cases
into federal court.

Travelers's Standard Fire Insurance unit is accused of failing to
fully reimburse losses by refusing to pay for the cost of hiring
general contractors.  The lawyers suing the company said they
would cap the damages they seek, including attorneys' fees, at the
$5 million threshold.

                          2010 Hailstorm

The lead plaintiff in the case is Greg Knowles, whose home was
damaged in a 2010 hailstorm.

The high court case came from Miller County, in Arkansas's
southwestern corner.  The county is a "magnet jurisdiction," where
trial lawyers have "dragooned scores of out-of-state corporations
into settling cases for vast sums bearing no meaningful
relationship to their merits," according to a court filing by five
insurance companies and the Manufactured Housing Institute, an
industry trade group based in Arlington, Virginia.

A group representing Arkansas plaintiffs' lawyers called that
characterization a "myth."  Since 2000, only 28 class- action
cases have been filed in Miller County, the Arkansas Trial Lawyers
Association said.

The case is Standard Fire v. Knowles, 11-1450.


SYDNEY STEEL: Gov't Lawyer Balks at Plaintiffs' Shotgun Approach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Ross, writing for Herald News, reports that a lawyer for
the federal government accused plaintiffs in the Sydney tar ponds
class action on March 19 of taking a "shotgun approach" and
"pleading anything possible in any manner."

It was the first day of three scheduled in the Nova Scotia Court
of Appeal as the federal and provincial governments seek to
overturn the certification of the tar ponds class action.  The
certification, which was finalized in January 2012, allows
thousands of past and present local residents to argue as one.

Paul Evraire, special counsel to the Department of Justice, spent
on March 19 arguing that the plaintiffs' reasons for suing hadn't
been supported well enough to allow the certification.  He picked
apart claims that the tar ponds were a source of nuisance,
trespass and battery upon nearby Sydney residents.  To call
contaminants that escaped from the tar ponds a nuisance left
things unclear, and Justice John D. Murphy didn't properly analyze
the legal basis for such claims, Mr. Evraire said.

"Escape is a sudden event, a mishap, an accident," he said, not
decades of industrial activity.

Claiming trespass and battery means making those claims fit a
situation of environmental contamination, and that fit wasn't well
explained, Mr. Evraire argued.

Justice Murphy certified all the issues "with scant amendment," he
said.

Justice Linda Lee Oland stopped Mr. Evraire several times to
question his arguments.

When the lawyer spoke about the claim of battery, she asked
whether there wasn't room in the legal system at this stage of the
case to let an unusual type of claim go forward, where it could
perhaps set a precedent.

"Novel claims are not to be foreclosed," he agreed.  But lawyer
Ray Wagner and his team, who are representing the plaintiffs, had
not made it clear that that's what they were doing, he said.

If the plaintiffs had described their claim as "a battery-like
claim," acknowledging that "battery" is usually a word used in a
different context, it would have been one thing, Mr. Evraire said.
"They have pled it as a traditional battery claim."

Mr. Evraire also questioned the abilities of Justice Murphy, whose
first certification hearing was the tar ponds case.  In Toronto, a
single team handles class actions full time and has built up
expertise that Murphy just doesn't have, Mr. Evraire said.

"I was disturbed by that," said Mr. Wagner as he left court.
"(Murphy) is a capable justice who deserves deference and
respect."

Mr. Wagner said he's frustrated by the case, which is coming up to
its ninth anniversary since he filed it in 2004.

"This has to rate as the longest certification motion, by far, in
Canadian history," he said.

The next days in court will be spent addressing whether the
members of the class action should be considered to have common
issues, and whether a class action is the preferred procedure for
the case.

The province's lawyers was set to speak on March 20, and
Mr. Wagner's team was set to respond on March 21, Mr. Wagner said.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for property damage and
exposure to industrial toxins from decades of contaminants spewed
from the former Sydney Steel Corp. plant, as well as funds to
establish a medical monitoring program.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Action Settlement May Have Repercussions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goutam Das, writing for Business Today, reports that the Tata
Consultancy Services settlement has not unduly bothered analysts
yet, its repercussions need to be watched nevertheless.

On February 14, 2006, a former employee filed a class action
lawsuit in a US court against India's largest software services
exporter.  Gopi Vedachalam, an Indian sent by TCS to work on a
client project in the US, alleged that the company was violating
local employment laws.  His suit, filed on behalf of 13,000
employees, stressed that TCS had "unjustly enriched" itself by
asking all non-US citizen employees to pay federal and state tax
refunds to the company.  TCS, he alleged, was also making
unauthorized deductions from pay checks.

The case dragged on for seven years -- a second plaintiff, another
former TCS employee Kangana Beri, joined the lawsuit.  Many
witnesses were examined and thousands of pages of documents were
produced as evidence by both sides in a California court.
Finally, on February 25 this year, TCS announced that it has
reached a $29.75 million settlement, but did not admit to any
wrongdoing.

"We decided to end this case so we can focus our energies entirely
on continuing to provide world-class service to our clients," the
company said in a statement.

Class action lawsuits such as this, where a group of people join
hands to fight a large corporation for a common cause, is a rare
event for Indian companies operating in the US.  While many
multinational technology companies have been at the receiving end
of class action suits, Indian companies have been largely
insulated thus far.

The only other prominent example is that of Mahindra Satyam's
$125-million settlement in 2011 -- a group of investors sued the
company for damages in the aftermath of the Satyam scam in 2009.

"The last year has seen an overall increase in the number of
employment related class action lawsuits being filed in the US and
it is expected that this trend will continue.  However, we do not
see any reason for an increase in class action lawsuits that are
targeted at Indian technology companies," says Inderpreet Sawhney,
General Counsel at IT firm Wipro.

According to US-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 7,672 Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) class action lawsuits were filed in 2012, an
increase of 893 cases from 2011.  The firm expects the number to
grow again in 2013 in employee-friendly state courts like
California and New York.  FLSA stipulates minimum wage and
overtime payment norms among others.  Technology giant Hewlett
Packard (HP), for instance, is currently facing a class action
lawsuit that charges the company with denying overtime work pay to
employees.

While Mr. Sawhney does not think Indian tech companies will be
targeted, there is a body of experts who feel that as these
companies hire more locals in foreign markets and grow larger in
size, exposure to such lawsuits will only increase.  Following and
interpreting labor laws in the US has been the Achilles' heel for
many IT companies, say analysts.

"About 10 years back, Indian companies used to take people from
India to the US and give them lower salaries. Many did not comply
with minimum salary norms.  Now that the companies are larger and
more visible, they have to ensure laws are complied with to the
dot," says Pradeep Mukherji, President and Managing Partner of
management consulting company Avasant.  Indian companies have to
be wary of harassment laws, according to Mr. Mukherji.  "If Indian
managers are not sensitive to local issues, it can result in
lawsuits.

Racial, sex, color-creed discrimination could lead to problems.
The language used for running operations should be well defined,"
he says.

Some smaller Indian companies are seen to be not complying with
local labor laws. It is denting the image of the big Indian
companies as well.  For instance, in February, six executives
working for a tiny company started by people of Indian origin,
Dibon Solutions, were indicted in Texas on charges of visa fraud.
The company marketed itself as an IT consulting company and
sponsored H-1B visas for those willing to work in its Texas
office.  However, employees were then subcontracted to other
technology companies.

So, how do India's large corporates guard against class action
suits? Companies hold that while they do business ethically, they
have little to be concerned about.

"The US is a litigious country.  We should be ready for something
like this (lawsuits).  As long as business practices are good, we
don't have to worry about it," says V. Balakrishnan, former CFO
and a board member at India's third-largest IT services company
Infosys.

The best defense in employment law matters is to have robust
policies that are clearly articulated, a strong human resources
team that ensures the implementation of policies, a process of
dissemination of information to managers and employees and an
Ombudsman process to timely address employee issues, says Wipro's
Mr. Sawhney.  "A strong legal team is key to ensuring that
compliance policies are in place.  An employer should be in a good
place to defend itself if a class action is brought against the
company," she added.

While the TCS settlement has not unduly bothered analysts yet, its
repercussions need to be watched nevertheless.  If a body of
stakeholders win a class action suit, others may be encouraged to
file a similar suit quoting the previous win as a precedent,
points out Sajai Singh, Partner with law firm J. Sagar Associates.

The website of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the law firm
that represented Vedachalam against TCS, has an ominous message
posted already: "Lieff Cabraser is investigating other Indian and
American companies that may have also breached employment
agreements and violated state labor laws for Indian employees sent
or transferred to the US."

Attorneys in a class action lawsuit can pocket as much as 30 per
cent of the value of the settlement fund ($8.92 million in the TCS
case), besides litigation expenses.  That is good enough reason
for them to be interested in Indian companies.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge has given preliminary approval to settling a class-
action suit over transmission problems on about 64,000 of Audi's
most popular models.

The settlement covers anyone in the United States who leased or
bought from Audi a 2002-6 A4 or A6 model with a continuously
variable automatic transmission.

The preliminary approval was given March 11 by Judge A. Howard
Matz of the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.  He scheduled a hearing for September when any
complaints about the settlement would be considered and final
approval could be given.

The suit -- Anna Sadowska and Yanick Godbout v. Volkswagen Group
of America -- was filed in January 2011.  It contends that the
continuously variable transmissions had manufacturing and design
flaws that caused them to fail, leaving owners facing thousands of
dollars in repair bills.  It further asserts that Audi knew about
these problems and concealed them from consumers.

In the settlement, Audi denied the transmissions were defective
and said it "acted properly and in compliance with applicable laws
and rules."  The automaker also said it was "also mindful of the
fact that future protracted litigation, with the burdens and
uncertainties it creates, may not be in the best interests of
their customers." So, the automaker agreed to the settlement.

Among the basic elements of the settlement:

   * Reimbursement "for certain C.V.T. transmission repairs" that
occurred or will occur within 10 years or 100,000 miles of the
original sale or lease of the vehicle.  The original powertrain
coverage was four years or 50,000 miles.  The parts for which the
owner will be reimbursed vary depending on model year.

The transmission control module is covered for 2003, 2004, 2005 or
2006 model year A4s and A6s.  The valve body is covered for 2003-4
model A4 and A6.  Replacement of the transmission without the
valve body and transmission control module "is covered for the
2002, 2003 or 2004 model year Audi A4 or Audi A6.

The settlement does not indicate whether the owner would be
reimbursed if another transmission part failed or if the entire
transmission needed to be replaced.  Some of the 2002 and 2003
models are probably beyond that extended warranty, but the owners
can still be reimbursed for the specified repair if it occurred
within 100,000 miles or 10 years, according to the settlement.

    * There is also a "trade-in reimbursement cost" for lost value
of a 2002, 2003 or 2004 A4 or A6 that needed "a complete
replacement of a C.V.T. transmission" after the normal warranty
expired but the vehicle was sold or traded without the repair.

The settlement does not say whether owners who had only a major
component fail instead of a complete replacement are eligible for
reimbursement.

It was also not clear why the 2005-6 model years were not covered
in this part of the settlement.

    * Under the settlement the plaintiff's lawyers will receive
$2.375 million for fees and expenses.

Those lawyers, Payam Shahian of Los Angeles and Robert Starr of
Woodland Hills, Calif., did not respond to a request for
clarifications of the basic elements of the settlement.


YAHOO! INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit
against Yahoo! Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
and directors of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin
Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust.  In October 2011, the District
Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo!
Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.  In a consolidated
amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff
purports to represent a class of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 19, 2011, and July 29, 2011,
and alleges that during that class period, defendants issued
statements that were materially false or misleading because they
did not disclose information relating to Alibaba Group's
restructuring of Alipay.com Co., Ltd.  The complaint purports to
assert claims for relief for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and seeks unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief,
fees and costs.  On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
have appealed.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers
personalized digital content and experiences through various
devices worldwide.  It offers online properties and services to
users; and a range of marketing services to businesses.  The
Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo!
Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and
Connected TV.  The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit 14-Year Low in 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Milford, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the number
of securities class-action settlements fell to a 14-year low in
2012 while their average dollar value rose to an all-time high, a
research study found.

The 53 court-approved settlements reported last year represent a
more than 45% decline from the 10-year average since 2002, and the
average settlement increased to $54.7 million in 2012 from $21.6
million in 2011, Cornerstone Research concluded in a report
released on March 19.

"Based on the volume of recent securities class action filings,
the unusually low number of settlements reported in 2012 is
unlikely to persist in the future," said Laura E. Simmons, senior
adviser of Cornerstone.  That's based on higher numbers of filings
in recent years that may come to settlement later, she said. For
2008 and 2009, there are 70 cases yet to be resolved, she said.

"Settlement trends are often best viewed over time periods longer
than a year," Joseph Grundfest, a law professor and director of
the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse,
said in the statement.  "A lull in last year's data suggested a
pickup for this year."

The Cornerstone researchers said such cases historically take
years to settle, and the decrease in the number of settlements
last year may be traced to fewer lawsuits being filed in 2009 and
2010.  Since 2007, the median time for settlement was 3.3 years,
the researchers said.

                       Significant Slowdown

They also cited a "significant slowdown in the initial public
offering market in 2008 and 2009" as a possible cause for a dip in
some 2012 settlements.

Cornerstone found that a third of the settlements in 2012 were in
the financial services industry, with the technology and
pharmaceutical industries being the next most prevalent sectors.

Institutional investors are being seen more as plaintiffs in
securities class-action lawsuits, the study determined.  Since
2006, institutions and public pension funds have been settling
more lawsuits, with public pensions serving as lead plaintiffs in
49% of settled cases, compared with 6% in 2003, according to
Cornerstone.

The organization, based in Menlo Park, California, provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony, with
consultants across the country.

In one case cited by Simmons, Motorola Solutions Inc. last May won
final federal court approval of a $200 million settlement with
shareholders who sued the company and top executives in 2007 for
allegedly overstating its prospects during the prior year.


                             *********

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  * * *