CAR_Public/130403.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 65

                             Headlines



3M CO: Recalls Filtrete Room Air Purifiers Due to Fire Risk
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Appeal in "Patrickson" Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Suit vs. AMVAC Remains Stayed in Delaware
AMWAY CANADA: Norton Rose Discusses Court of Appeal Ruling
BOEING CO: Dismissal of Dreamliner Class Suit Affirmed

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Premiums
BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 10,160 Cameleon3 Strollers
CENTURYLINK INC: Has OK of Rights-of-Way Suits Deals in 22 States
CENTURYLINK INC: Majority of Claims in "Fulghum" Suit Dismissed
COMCAST CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Class Action

CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Parkay Spray Claims
COST PLUS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Kern County
CST BRANDS: Canadian Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending
CST BRANDS: Settlement in Hot Fuel Suit Approved in December
CVB FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit

GAF TIMBERLINE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Defective Shingles
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Lawsuit Against Unit Stayed Through July 20
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Bezich" Suit vs. LNL
LIVINGSOCIAL: Settles Daily Deals Class Action for $4.1 Million
NEW YORK, NY: Officers Told to Target Black Men, Trial Reveals

NIDEK INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Lasik Medical Experimentation
OBAGI PHARMA: Being Sold to Valeant for Too Little, Suit Claims
PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Merger-Related Suits Consolidated in Jan.
PT DOMUSINDO: Recalls 73,000 PT Domusindo Perdana Drop-Side Cribs

ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Debt Collection Suit
SELLING SOURCE: Pfister TCPA Suit Transferred to California
SOUTHERN UNION: Merger-Related Suit in Texas Remains Pending
SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Still Defends "Price" Class Suit
STANDARD FIRE: Morgan Lewis Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

STAR SCIENTIFIC: To Vigorously Contest Class Action Allegations
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Class Suit Remains Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Childs" Class Suit in Discovery Phase
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Shareholder Derivative Suit Settlement Okayed
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Visa Awaits Okay of Interchange Fee Suit Deal

UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Release of Filings on Guantanamo Case
UNITED TECH: Laid-Off Worker Files Class Action Over Stock Awards
WEST MUSIC: Recalls 6,500 Basic Beat Egg-Shaker Toy Instruments
WHITEWATER TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 2,200 Kayaking and Rafting Helmets


                             *********


3M CO: Recalls Filtrete Room Air Purifiers Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
3M Company, of St. Paul, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall
of about 10,000 Filtrete(TM) room air purifiers.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The ion generator in the air purifiers can overheat, posing a fire
hazard.

3M has received two incident reports: one of an air purifier
overheating and another of an internal room air purifier filter
catching fire.  No injuries or property damage reported.

This recall involves 3M air purifiers branded Filtrete.  The air
purifiers are white, made of plastic and plug into the wall.  They
measure about 19 inches tall by 8 inches wide with a 13 inch tall
by 4.5 inch wide air filter.  They have a two-speed fan knob with
Filtrete embossed on the top.  The two recalled models are Ultra
Quiet, number FAP00-RS, and Maximum Allergen, number FAP00-L,
which was sold only at Lowe's stores.  The products serial numbers
begin with E, F, G, H, I or J and the model and serial numbers are
located on the bottom of the product.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/2OWmgh

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Ultra Quiet at Ace Hardware, Bi-Mart, Do It Best, Fred Meyer,
Handy Hardware Wholesale, Nuthouse, Orchard Supply, Orgill Bros.,
Petco, Rite Aid, Strosniders, Theisen Farm & Home, True Value
Hardware stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com and others.
Maximum Allergen sold only at Lowe's stores.  The FAP00-RS model
was sold from November 2008 through January 2013, and the FAP00-L
model was sold from October 2012 through January 2013, both for
about $60.

Consumers should immediately unplug the recalled air purifier and
contact 3M to obtain a prepaid shipping box to return the product
for a free replacement.  3M Company may be reached at (800) 388-
3458 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.filtrete.com/roomairpurifiers/and
click on the link FAP00-RS recall for more information.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Appeal in "Patrickson" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit styled Patrickson, et al. v.
Dole Food Company, et al., remains pending, according to American
Vanguard Corporation's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 1997, AMVAC Chemical Corporation was served with two
complaints in which it was named as a defendant, filed in the
Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit
Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical
lawsuits) entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et.
al ("Patrickson Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries
(including sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs'
exposure to 1, 2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") while
applying the product in their native countries.  Other named
defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company and Dow
Chemical Company.  The ten named plaintiffs are variously citizens
of four countries -- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador.
Punitive damages are sought against each defendant.  The case was
also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers allegedly
so exposed in these four countries.

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion
for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on
the statute of limitations, as they had filed lawsuit in Florida
in 1995.  All defendants joined in this motion.  The court granted
this motion on June 9, 2009.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior class
action cases.  On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for
reconsideration.  Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered
on July 28, 2010.

On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which
is presently pending.  In March 2011, Dow filed a brief in
opposition to the appeal, arguing that plaintiffs are barred from
this action by the applicable statute of limitations.  Following
the completion of briefing on April 8, 2011, counsel for
plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to substitute new
counsel.  The court has not ruled on any of the pending motions,
nor do the court rules require that the court rule by any
particular date.

The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or
reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not set up a loss
contingency for this matter.

Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, American Vanguard
Corporation -- http://www.american-vanguard.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in January 1969 and operates as a holding
company.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Suit vs. AMVAC Remains Stayed in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of American Vanguard
Corporation remains stayed, 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 July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC
Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-
149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff, residing in Costa
Rica, against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC,
The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and
Dole Food Company.  In the action, plaintiff claims personal
injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to 1, 2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") between 1979 and 1980 while
working as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in Costa
Rica.  The Defendant Dow filed a motion to dismiss the action as
being barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as this
same plaintiff filed the same claim in Florida in 1995 and
subsequently withdrew the matter.  The Plaintiff contends that the
statute of limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class
certification, which was denied.  AMVAC contends that the
plaintiff could not have been exposed to any DBCP supplied by
AMVAC in Costa Rica.  On August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow's
motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation.
In response to that denial, on August 20, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and, on September 18,
2012, the Delaware Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on
the question of whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross
jurisdictional tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a
Delaware court to follow the class action tolling of another
jurisdiction, in this case, Texas, rather than its own two year
statute of limitations).

Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed.  It is
expected that the Delaware Supreme Court will issue its ruling in
2013.  Whatever the outcome on appeal, AMVAC intends to defend the
matter vigorously.  The Company does not believe that a loss is
either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss
contingency for the matter.

Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, American Vanguard
Corporation -- http://www.american-vanguard.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in January 1969 and operates as a holding
company.


AMWAY CANADA: Norton Rose Discusses Court of Appeal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy C. Sutton, Esq. -- randy.sutton@nortonrose.com -- at Norton
Rose Canada LLP, reports that the Federal Court of Appeal's recent
decision in Murphy v Amway Canada Corp. has clarified the findings
in Seidel v TELUS Communications confirming that in the absence of
express statutory language overriding mandatory arbitration
agreements and class action waivers, courts will continue to give
effect to the parties' agreements to arbitrate individually and
not by class action.

As reported previously, the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011
decision in Seidel left some uncertainty as to the enforceability
of mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers for
statutory claims.

                            Background

On October 23, 2009, the appellant, Kerry Murphy, began a proposed
class action proceeding against Amway Canada Corporation and Amway
Global claiming their business practices were in violation of
sections 52, 55 and 55(1) of the Competition Act.  Murphy
complained Amway failed to provide its distributors with an
accurate compensation metric and Amway's business operated as an
illegal scheme of pyramid-selling.  Consequently, Murphy filed a
claim seeking $15,000 in damages, and sought to have her action
certified as a class action.  No other potential class members had
been identified.

In response, Amway brought a motion to stay the proceedings and to
compel arbitration as per the agreement to mediate and arbitrate
disputes (the Arbitration Agreement) entered into between the
parties.  Amway's motion was granted November 23, 2011, by a
Federal Court judge (the Judge).  The Judge determined that a
class action waiver contained in the Arbitration Agreement barred
Murphy from bringing a motion for certification as a class.  The
clause prohibited any party from bringing a class action for an
amount exceeding $1,000 and stated that any class action would
have to be resolved individually in private arbitration.
Issues

Murphy sought to have the stay granted by the Judge set aside.
The main issue raised in this appeal was whether a private claim
under section 36 of the Competition Act was arbitrable.

                             Analysis

Relying on Seidel, Murphy asserted that the statutory protections
under the Competition Act in this matter were closely analogous to
those in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act
(BPCPA), which were at issue in that case.  It was further argued
that there was a compelling public policy concern that could not
be adequately addressed in private and confidential arbitration
proceedings.

Seidel involved a dispute between Telus and one of its customers
over a cell phone contract, which provided that all disputes would
be resolved by way of private arbitration.  Seidel argued that the
contract was in violation of the BPCPA and sought to certify her
action on behalf of a class.  A majority of the Supreme Court
determined that the effect of the language and intent of the BPCPA
was to invalidate the arbitration clause, but only to the extent
that it took away a protection conferred by the BPCPA.

The SCC held that statutory language expressing a clear
legislative intent to exclude recourse to arbitration would be
required before the courts will refuse to give effect to the terms
of an arbitration agreement.  On that basis, Seidel was allowed to
proceed with part of her claim as a class action insofar as it was
covered by statutory protections interpreted by the SCC as
excluding recourse to arbitration.  However, it was determined
that her private action for damages under another section of the
BPCPA could go to arbitration as that claim was not covered by
similar protections under the BPCPA.

The FCA agreed with the Judge in finding that the provisions of
the Competition Act raised in this matter were not comparable to
those in the BPCPA.  Unlike the BPCPA, the Competition Act did not
contain language indicating Parliament's intent that arbitration
clauses or class action waivers be restricted or prohibited.  The
FCA concluded that Murphy's claim was much more analogous to
Seidel's private action in damages, which the SCC had determined
was arbitrable.

With respect to the public interest concerns raised by Murphy, the
FCA held that two recent SCC cases -- Dell Computer Corp. v Union
des consommateurs et al and Rogers Wireless Inc. v Muroff -- had
clearly determined that public order concerns do not affect
whether or not arbitration should be permitted.  Very clearly, any
statutory claim will be subjected to arbitration where the parties
have agreed to arbitrate, unless there is language in the statute
expressing clear legislative intent to the contrary.

                          Conclusion

The Murphy decision confirms that Canada remains an "arbitration-
friendly jurisdiction."  It suggests the Seidel decision must be
applied narrowly: absent factors that were present in that case
(i.e., statutory language expressing clear legislative intent),
courts will not interfere with parties' class action waivers or
agreements to arbitrate their disputes, including statutory
claims.  This position is consistent with a long line of cases and
affirms that such waivers and agreements remain effective tools by
which businesses can limit their risk of distracting class actions
and costly litigation proceedings.

Norton Rose Group is an international legal practice.  The firm
offers a full business law service to many of the world's pre-
eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in
Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin
America and Central Asia.

It has more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in Abu
Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing,
Bogot , Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Caracas,
Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong,
Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montr‚al, Moscow, Munich,
Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Qu‚bec, Rome, Shanghai,
Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate
offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.

Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose
Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa
(incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective
affiliates.


BOEING CO: Dismissal of Dreamliner Class Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that The Boeing
Company won an appeals-court ruling affirming the dismissal of an
investor lawsuit accusing company officials of making misleading
public statements about the readiness of its 787 Dreamliner
aircraft.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago also asked a trial-court
judge to consider punishing lawyers for the City of Livonia Public
Employees' Retirement System in Michigan for failing to adequately
investigate statements allegedly made by a confidential source
they relied on.

"The plaintiffs' lawyers had made confident assurances in their
complaints about a confidential source -- their only barrier to
dismissal of their suit -- even though none of the lawyers had
spoken to the source and their investigator had acknowledged that
she couldn't verify what (according to her) he had told her," U.S.
Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote in the unanimous ruling by the
three-judge appeals panel.

The confidential source later denied making the alleged previous
statements when questioned under oath by Boeing lawyers, according
to Posner.

Boeing's 787 jet entered service in 2011 after three years of
delays caused by supply-chain interruptions, assembly problems and
a machinists strike.  The Federal Aviation Administration grounded
the plane in January after overheated lithium ion batteries on
some planes began smoldering and emitting smoke.

The Livonia pension plan class action was filed in 2009 by San
Diego-based law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.  Named as
defendants with Boeing were CEO Jim McNerney and Scott E. Carson,
who led the company's Commercial Airplanes division.

After an initial complaint was dismissed, U.S. District Judge
Suzanne Conlon in Chicago allowed the plaintiffs to refile and
then denied a subsequent defense motion for dismissal, according
to the appeals court.  Boeing renewed that request after
questioning the source of the allegations, an engineer identified
as Bishnujee Singh.  Judge Conlon granted the company's request.

"Noting that none of the plaintiffs' lawyers had met or talked to
Singh until six months after they filed the second amended
complaint, even though the first amended complaint had alleged
reliance on internal Boeing communications, the judge thought
their failure to attempt to verify the allegations in the
investigator's notes amounted to a fraud on the court," the
appeals court said on March 26.

Darren Robbins, a partner in the firm's San Diego office, and
James Barz, a partner in its Chicago office, didn't immediately
reply to messages seeking comment on the court's decision.

"Boeing is pleased that the Court of Appeals concluded, as did the
district court, that the securities-fraud allegations against
Boeing were baseless and that it was the plaintiffs' law firm that
engaged in fraud -- fraud on the court," John Dern, a company
spokesman, said in an emailed statement.

"Boeing looks forward to the hearings in the district court in
which sanctions against the plaintiffs' law firm will be
considered," Mr. Dern said.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Vancouver Sun's Pamela Fayerman, a B.C. Supreme Court
judge will hear arguments this month in a class-action lawsuit
against the British Columbia government.  The lawsuit suggests
doctors were stiffed for up to C$100 million in fees, including
accumulated interest, for treating 400,000 patients who were in
arrears on their Medical Services Plan premiums.

It has taken 15 years for the case to get this far.  It was only
last year that Justice Elaine Adair agreed the class-action case
could go ahead.

James Halvorson, a Cowichan District Hospital emergency room
doctor, is the lead plaintiff.  He says he's owed more than
C$100,000 in fees and interest after he treated patients only to
have their bills rejected by the public health insurance scheme.

Mr. Halvorson said the de-enrolling of people in arrears appeared
to proliferate under premier Mike Harcourt and subsided under
premier Glen Clark.  The case is restricted to July 23, 1992, to
April 30, 1996 -- a peak period for denials of medical service
billings.

In 2011-12, there was about C$80 million of unpaid premiums, with
a total of C$360 million over the past four decades.  But patients
who are behind on payments aren't usually denied care and doctors
are no longer denied fees for treating such patients.

Mr. Halvorson said many of the 7,000 doctors practicing in B.C. at
the time may have submitted bills and had them denied on the
grounds that patients hadn't paid their premiums.  Mr. Grant said
he expects emergency doctors bore the brunt of bad debt.

In the 1990s, doctors had no way of knowing a patient's MSP status
when they were treating them.

Arthur Grant, Mr. Halvorson's lawyer, said that all hospitals and
medical clinics are now connected by computer to the MSP
databases.  That means that if patients are in arrears, doctors
may not provide care.  But emergency cases are not turned away.

Mr. Halvorson contends cancelling enrolment of B.C. residents was
unlawful under the public, universal health care system.  Doctors
have an ethical duty to provide care even if they don't have
insurance coverage, he said.


BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 10,160 Cameleon3 Strollers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Bugaboo Americas, of El Segundo,
California; and manufacturer, Bugaboo International B.V., of
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, announced a voluntary recall of about
9,200 Bugaboo Cameleon3 Strollers in the United States of America
and 960 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The stroller's carrying handle can break and detach posing a fall
hazard.

Bugaboo has received 16 reports of carry handles breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Bugaboo Cameleon3 strollers.  The
stroller has an aluminum and plastic frame with rubberized wheels,
a removable seat and bassinet, a removable "U"-shaped carry
handle, an under-the-seat storage bag and a sun canopy.  The
bassinet, seat and sun canopy come in a variety of colors.  The
removable carry handle is used to transport the bassinet or seat
separately from the chassis.  The words "Bugaboo" and "Cameleon3"
appear on a fabric tag on the side of the sun canopy.  Strollers
included in the recall have serial numbers from 19010 11153 00001
to 19010 51248 00215.  Serial numbers are printed on a horizontal
bar of the stroller's chassis beneath the seat.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/gpcaPw

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy
Buy Baby, Toys R Us and other baby product stores nationwide,
Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, online at Bugaboo.com and other online
retailers from September 2012 to March 2013 for between $889 and
$1,600.  Consumers should immediately remove the carry handle from
the stroller's bassinet or seat and contact Bugaboo for a free
replacement handle.  While awaiting the replacement handle,
consumers can continue to use the seat or bassinet when attached
to the chassis but should not attempt to use the seat or bassinet
separate from the chassis.  Bugaboo Americas may be reached at
(800) 460-2922, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, at e-mailserviceus@bugaboo.com or online at
http://www.bugaboo.com/,and click on "Important Safety
Announcements" at the bottom left of the page for more
information.


CENTURYLINK INC: Has OK of Rights-of-Way Suits Deals in 22 States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Inc. disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that it has received final approval of
settlements in rights-of-way lawsuits in 22 states.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest Communications International Inc. on behalf of landowners on
various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest
has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)  For
the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to
install the Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.
The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as
an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company
to install the Company's cable in the right-of-way without the
Plaintiffs' consent.  Most of the currently pending actions
purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named
Plaintiffs' respective states, although one action pending before
the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.  In general, the complaints seek
damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as
punitive damages.  After previous attempts to enter into a single
nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the
parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a
state-by-state basis.

To date, the parties have received final approval of such
settlements in 22 states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin), have
received preliminary approval of the settlements in eight states
(California, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina and Utah), and have not yet received either preliminary
or final approval in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, New
Mexico and Texas).

The Company says it has accrued an amount that the Company
believes is probable for these matters; however, the amount is not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  It also offers
advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.


CENTURYLINK INC: Majority of Claims in "Fulghum" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed in
February 2013 the majority of the claims in the class action
lawsuit initiated by William Douglas Fulghum, et al., against a
subsidiary of CenturyLink, 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.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007, in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain
modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life
insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,
generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which,
at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated
future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300
million).  The Defendants include Embarq, a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc., certain of its benefit plans, its Employee
Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of
certain of its benefits plans.  Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court
certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected
class certification as to other claims.  Embarq and other
defendants continue to vigorously contest these claims and
charges.  On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new,
related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al.
CenturyLink/Embarq is not named a defendant in the lawsuit.  In
Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also
are at issue in the Fulghum case.  The Abbott plaintiffs are all
members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for
allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott
claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim
(Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification.
The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case.

Embarq and the other defendants will continue to vigorously
contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the
claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds.  The
Company has not accrued a liability for these matters as it is
premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and
(ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable
liability.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  It also offers
advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.


COMCAST CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that the Supreme
Court on March 27 ruled in favor of Comcast Corp in an antitrust
case over how much it charged cable TV subscribers, further
curtailing the ability of people to pursue class action lawsuits.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said a group of cable TV subscribers
in the Philadelphia area who accused Comcast of overcharging them
as part of an effort to monopolize the market could not sue as a
group.

"The permutations involving four theories of liability and 2
million subscribers located in 16 counties are nearly endless,"
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.

Comcast's subscribers fell "far short of establishing that damages
are capable of measurement on a classwide basis," he continued.
"There is no question that the model failed to measure damages
resulting from the particular antitrust injury on which
(Comcast's) liability in this action is premised."

The March 27 decision came in one of several class action cases
being addressed this term by a court whose recent decision-making
is often considered friendly to businesses and unfriendly to
consumers.  They follow a landmark 2011 decision in Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. v. Dukes where the court threw out a giant employment
discrimination lawsuit because the female plaintiffs did not have
enough in common to sue together.

The vote breakdown was a familiar one, with Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel
Alito joining Scalia's opinion.  The more liberal justices
dissented, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer penning an
unusual joint dissent, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Comcast did not immediately comment, saying its lawyers were
reviewing the decision.  Barry Barnett, a lawyer for the
subscribers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

While not as sweeping as the Wal-Mart ruling, the Comcast decision
addressed a key issue in class action litigation: what kind of
evidence must be presented in the early stages of a case before a
judge can allow a class action to go forward.

Led by Caroline Behrend, subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey
and Delaware in an $875 million lawsuit dating from 2003 accused
the largest cable TV company of overcharges through its effort to
monopolize the Philadelphia area market.  The subscribers said
that by buying rivals or swapping coverage areas, Philadelphia-
based Comcast was able to triple its market share, which peaked at
77.8 percent in 2002.

Comcast said the case was too big, covering subscribers in 649
franchise areas facing different competitive conditions.

In August 2011, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia said a trial judge could decide the subscribers had a
common methodology to justify awarding damages to a class.

But in reversing that ruling, Scalia said that in focusing on
damages, the 3rd Circuit failed to do what Supreme Court
precedents require: examine whether "common questions" among class
members predominate over individual questions.

"By refusing to entertain arguments against (subscribers') damages
model that bore on the propriety of class certification, simply
because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits
determination, the Court of Appeals ran afoul of our precedents
requiring precisely that inquiry," Scalia wrote.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer said they would have dismissed the
appeal, saying the court erred in reformulating the case to focus
on issues that Comcast had not pressed in lower courts and which
the subscribers did not have a fair chance to address.

The dissent also said the court erred in overturning factual
findings made by two lower courts over whether the subscribers'
damages model was legitimate.

The case is Comcast Corp et al v. Behrend et al, U.S. Supreme
Court, No. 11-864.


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Parkay Spray Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that though Parkay Spray contains
832 calories and 93 grams of fat per bottle, Conagra advertises it
as having "0 fat" and "0 calories" by using artificially small
serving sizes, a class claims.


COST PLUS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Kern County
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cost Plus stiff workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Kern County Court.


CST BRANDS: Canadian Price Fixing Class Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits arising from CST Brands, Inc.'s retail
operations in Canada remain pending, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Ultramar Ltd., Valero Energy Corporation's principal Canadian
subsidiary ("Ultramar"), was named as a defendant in four class
actions alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in
illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of
Quebec.  The cases were filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea
by Ultramar and an employee and charges laid against several
alleged co-conspirators.  As a result, four class actions were
filed on the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs.
Ultramar et al in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec
City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar et al,
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael
Jeanson et al vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs. Ultramar et al, Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal.  As required pursuant to
the civil procedure rules in effect, the first filed claim is
given priority, and the others are suspended pending final
judgment on the first filed claim.  The guilty plea followed an
extensive government investigation and was confined to a limited
time period and limited geographic area around Thetford Mines and
Victoriaville in Quebec.  The plaintiffs attempted to widen the
scope, alleging the existence of a conspiracy extending between
2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec.  The court allowed a time range
of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the geographic area beyond the
four limited markets identified by the investigation.  A hearing
on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in November
2009, the court authorized the action to proceed on a class basis
for the limited geographic area.  A statement of claim was filed
but the proceedings were suspended until May 5, 2011.  The
suspension was a result, in part, of damage proof issues for
plaintiffs that developed
pre-discovery.  The court required the plaintiffs to file a report
on damages on May 5, 2011.  Ultramar intends to vigorously contest
the scope of alleged liability and damages.

On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion
to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel
Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Quebec.  This matter had previously been put in
abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed.  The plaintiff
changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse
alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec.  By
issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as
for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim
outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the
Jacques matter.  On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of
Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the
territory to be covered by the action.

Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out
of the Company's retail operations in Canada.  As a result, the
Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless
Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims
pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company concluded a loss
was probable and reasonably estimable and as such, the Company
recorded an immaterial loss contingency liability.  Due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company believes it is
reasonably possible that the Company may suffer a loss in excess
of the amount recorded that could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's results of operations, financial position or
liquidity with respect to one or more of the lawsuits.  An
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse
result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot be
reasonably made due to a number of factors, the most significant
of which is that no amount of damages has been specified by the
plaintiffs.

CST Brands, Inc. -- http://www.CSTBrands.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in San Antonio, Texas.  The Company is a large
independent retailer of motor fuel and convenience merchandise
items in the U.S. and eastern Canada.


CST BRANDS: Settlement in Hot Fuel Suit Approved in December
------------------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc., disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-12B/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
settlement in a litigation over fuel temperature involving its
former parent was approved in December 2012.

On December 13, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against
Valero Energy Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company LLC,
ConocoPhillips, Chevron USA, Inc., Tesoro Refining and Marketing
Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The
Kroger Company and a few other retailers in San Francisco federal
court.  The complaint accused the defendants of violating state
consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume or price
of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
Following this filing, numerous other federal complaints were
filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas (Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor
Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation).  In mid-April 2012,
Valero and certain of the other defendants reached a preliminary
class settlement with the plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2012, the court initially denied approval of this
settlement concluding that the settling parties had failed to show
how the settlement sufficiently benefited the class members.  The
settling parties, including Valero, agreed with the court and
supplemented the record to demonstrate how the settlement will
benefit the class.  On December 10, 2012, the court approved the
settlement.

The Company says that it had recorded an immaterial loss
contingency liability with respect to this matter consistent with
its liability under the settlement; therefore, the Company has no
additional exposure due to the court's approval of the settlement.

Because a portion of Valero's alleged liability in the class
action allegedly arises out of the Company's retail operations,
the Company has agreed to indemnify Valero for 50 percent of the
monetary portion of the settlement (or otherwise 50 percent of any
monetary payment that Valero ultimately may be obligated to pay in
final resolution of the class action).  The Company has also
agreed to certain actions required under the settlement agreement
on a prospective basis, including the posting of fuel temperatures
at the Company's U.S. retail sites.  The settlement agreement
includes a full release from liability for Valero and its
affiliates, including the Company.

CST Brands, Inc. -- http://www.CSTBrands.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in San Antonio, Texas.  The Company is a large
independent retailer of motor fuel and convenience merchandise
items in the U.S. and eastern Canada.


CVB FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action 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.

On July 26, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Los
Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's allowance for
credit loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology
for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan
losses.  In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding
certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences
Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors
or prospective investors.  The Company has fully cooperated with
the SEC in its investigation, and the Company will continue to do
so to the extent any further information is requested.  The
Company says it cannot predict the timing or outcome of the
investigation.

In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants.  On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.
On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx).  That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved
the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  On March 7, 2011, the
Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same
defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the
purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21,
2009, and August 9, 2010.  The consolidated complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported
class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and memoranda
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order.  On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint against the same defendants, and once again,
following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4,
2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012,
granting defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another
amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling.  On September 20,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the
same defendants, and the Company filed its third motion to dismiss
on October 25, 2012.  The District Court has taken the Company's
third motion to dismiss under submission, and the Company intends
to continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff's allegations in
this case.

On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder
derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v.
Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior
Court in San Bernardino County.  The complaint names as defendants
the members of the Company's board of directors and also refers to
unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged.
The Company is included as a nominal defendant.  The complaint
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement and corporate waste.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting
manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company's financial
results in connection with its commercial real estate portfolio.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid
by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other
relief.  On June 20, 2011, the defendants filed a demurrer
requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint.  Following the
filing by each side of additional motions, the parties have
subsequently filed repeated notices to postpone the Court's
hearing on the defendants' demurrer, pending resolution of the
federal securities shareholder class action complaint, and these
postponements are currently extended to at least September 11,
2013.

Because the outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, the Company
says it cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is
probable related to the actions.

CVB Financial Corp. -- http://www.cbbank.com/-- is a bank holding
company incorporated in California in 1981 with headquarters
located in Ontario, California.  Citizens Business Bank is the
Company's principal asset.


GAF TIMBERLINE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Defective Shingles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a class action filed by members of a
Georgia church who discovered alleged defects in GAF Timberline
shingles installed nearly 15 years ago has been dismissed by a
federal judge.

Judge J. Michelle Childs disposed of the four-count complaint
March 22 after determining that the church's negligence claims
were barred by Georgia's statute of repose and that the church
failed to state actionable claims against GAF for breach of
warranty and violation of state business practices law.

The alleged defects were discovered by a roofing inspector prior
to the filing of the class action in 2012.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Lawsuit Against Unit Stayed Through July 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
An adversary proceeding involving a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation is stayed through July 20, 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 July 23, 2012, The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
("LNL"), the Company's primary insurance subsidiary, was added as
a noteholder defendant to a putative class action adversary
proceeding ("Adversary Proceeding") captioned Lehman Brothers
Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro.
No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the
Southern District of New York.  The Plaintiff  Lehman Brothers
Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") seeks to (i) overturn the
application of certain priority of payment provisions in 47
collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis such
provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and (ii)
recover funds paid out to Noteholders in accordance with the Note
agreements.  The Adversary proceeding is stayed through July 20,
2013, and LNL's response is currently due to be filed on September
5, 2013.

Lincoln National Corporation -- http://www.lfg.com/-- is a
holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement
businesses through subsidiary companies.  Through its business
segments, the Company sells a wide range of wealth protection,
accumulation and retirement income products and solutions.  The
Company is an Indiana headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Bezich" Suit vs. LNL
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County,
Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. LNL, No. 02C01-0906-PL73,
asserting he was charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the
applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms
of the insurance contract.  The parties are conducting fact
discovery, and no class certification motion has yet been filed.
Lincoln National Corporation disputes the allegations and are
vigorously defending this matter.

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.

Lincoln National Corporation -- http://www.lfg.com/-- is a
holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement
businesses through subsidiary companies.  Through its business
segments, the Company sells a wide range of wealth protection,
accumulation and retirement income products and solutions.  The
Company is an Indiana headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania.


LIVINGSOCIAL: Settles Daily Deals Class Action for $4.1 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anya Kamenetz, writing for Fast Company, reports a judge ruled the
single payment settles claims of 11 million customers that the
daily-deals site violated federal and state law.

Ever since the federal CARD Act passed in 2009, all gift
certificates have been required to have no less than a five-year
expiration date.  Some states, such as California, ban any
expiration date whatsoever for gift certificates.  This includes
Starbucks cards, the manicure you gave your mom for her birthday,
and a judge recently decided that the five-year rule applies to
the daily deals sold by LivingSocial.

What would often happen is that a LivingSocial deal would be
announced, exceed sales expectations, the business would be
overwhelmed by customers, and it would become impossible to redeem
the deal in the weeks or months allotted.  A customer was angry
enough to be missing out on her kayak tour that she decided to
sue.

The $4.1 million payout, announced last week, will be split among
some 26,830 disappointed customers who filed valid claims as of
last month.  In the future, LivingSocial, which "deny that they
have done anything wrong or illegal and admit no liability,"
according to the official settlement FAQ, will sidestep the "gift
certificate" classification by dividing its deals into "paid
value" and "promotional value," each with a different expiration
date.  For example, this coupon for microdermabrasion has a paid
value of $49 -- the actual money you put down -- expiring on
March 26, 2018, and a promotional value of $110-$140, expiring on
July 2, 2013 -- the effective expiration date of the deal.  In
earlier statements, company spokespeople did not address the
charges directly and said that if they had heard from customers,
they would have done everything in their power to make it right.

Besides being another example of the air escaping from the daily-
deals balloon, in the wake of the departure of Groupon's CEO
Andrew Mason, the case highlights how consumer law struggles to
keep up with the way we shop now.  It makes sense from a consumer
protection standpoint to impose generous time limits on gift
certificates.  Billions of dollars' worth of gift cards and gift
certificates go unredeemed every year because life gets in the
way.  But with the volume and pace implied by "daily deals," it
seems excessive to require every offer by every one of these sites
to be redeemable for a full five years or more.


NEW YORK, NY: Officers Told to Target Black Men, Trial Reveals
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.L. Chandler, writing for Hip-Hop Wired, reports that NYPD's
stop-and-frisk policy is under fire once more after officers
testifying in the federal class-action trial in Manhattan revealed
that superiors wanted them to target Black men.  Although city
officials have denied the racist allegations, early testimony in
the trial has been especially damaging to the police department's
stance.

In an opinion piece from the New York Times titled "Walking While
Black In New York," officers Pedro Serrano and Adhyl Polanco took
drastic measures to expose the policy's aims.  Using a secretly
taped recording to document the wrongdoing, officer Serrano was
ordered by a superior to specifically target the "right people" --
Black males ages 14 to 21.

"The problem was, what, male blacks," said 40th Precinct Deputy
Inspector Christopher McCormack to Serrano.  "And I told you at
roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14
to 20, 21."

As the Times column noted, this would be a clear indication that
police officials violated the constitutional Fourth Amendment
rights of the men.  The law offers protection against illegal
search and seizure, especially when officers have not established
reason for suspicion.

Officer Polanco of the 41st Precinct dealt with a similar matter.
Noting in his testimony that officers were ordered to create stop-
and-frisk scenarios, make more arrests and issue 20 summonses
including one arrest per month as part of a quota.  Officer
Polanco also recorded police meetings in a similar hidden fashion
and shared the audio during testimony as well.

The trial is expected to last until the end of April, with several
witnesses taking the stand to offer countering and supporting
testimonies.


NIDEK INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Lasik Medical Experimentation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that off-label use of
Lasik technology did not amount to illegal medical experimentation
on humans, the 9th Circuit ruled, tossing a class action.

None of the named plaintiffs -- Robert Perez, Nancy Art and Brett
Harbach -- claimed that they suffered injuries from the surgical
procedure, short for laser in situ keratomileusis.  They claim,
rather, that a number of doctors used a Nidek EC-5000 Excimer
Laser System to correct their farsightedness before the Federal
Drug Administration had approved the Lasik for that purpose.  Each
said they would not have gone through the surgery had they known
it was unapproved.

Their complaint alleged that anyone who used the surgery to
correct farsightedness from 1996 to its FDA approval date 10 years
later was an unwitting participant in a kind of unannounced
clinical experiment.  They accused Nidek and their doctors of
having "engaged in a nationwide scheme to modify the approved
laser to enable it to correct farsightedness before it was
approved for that purpose."

Among other things, they sought damages under California's
Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act.

The FDA, which conducted clinical trials on the technology during
the class period, sent warning letters to Nidek in the early 2000s
to address concerns that it was using it for "unapproved
applications," according to the ruling.  The plaintiffs claimed
that the company ignored the warnings and continued to install and
market the lasers to correct farsightedness.

A federal judge in San Diego dismissed the action, and a three-
judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed, refusing to classify the
surgeries as "medical experiments."  That definition goes far
beyond what the California Legislature intended in passing the
act, which "purposefully excluded therapeutic off-label use,"
according to the ruling.

Plaintiff Perez, for example, "admits that the surgeries had a
therapeutic purpose," the opinion states.

"He does not claim that this therapeutic purpose was merely
incidental to a broader research goal - in fact, he does not claim
that there was any research goal whatsoever," Judge M. Margaret
McKeown wrote for the panel.  "Without doubt, the hyperopic
surgeries at issue here were 'reasonably related' to 'improving
[Perez's] health' and 'directly benefiting' him." (Brackets in
original.)

The panel also agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs had
no standing to seek injunctive relief under the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and that the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act pre-empted their other claims.


OBAGI PHARMA: Being Sold to Valeant for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Obagi pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply to Valeant Pharmaceuticals, for $19.75
a share or $360 million, shareholders claim in Superior Court.


PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
MyKawartha.com reports that a multi-million dollar lawsuit has
been filed against the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC),
some of its former staff members and Fleming College.

The lawsuit comes after 280 patient files at the hospital were
breached.  Information regarding the breach was released to the
public last spring by hospital officials.  Seven employees were
fired as a result.

Since, Ottawa-based lawyer Michael Crystal has been meeting with
former patients in the Peterborough area to begin the process of
filing a class-action lawsuit.  Those papers were filed in the
Ontario Superior of Court of Justice in Peterborough on March 21.

The lawsuit is seeking general damages in the amount of C$5.6
million plus punitive and aggravated damages in the amount of C$1
million and an additional C$50,000 against each defendant named.

Mr. Crystal is confident the lawsuit will move ahead, considering
that hospital officials have acknowledged wrong doing and even
went as far as to fire seven employees last year involved in the
privacy breach.

"There's been acknowledgment that the records were accessed," says
Mr. Crystal.

The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Crystal's firm on behalf of
plaintiffs Jessica Hopkins, Heike Hesse and Erkenraadje Wensvoort.
The defendants are Andrea Kay, Dana Gildon Cormier, Mandy Edgerton
Reid, Dawn Deciocci, Jane Doe "A", Jane Doe "B", Jane Doe "C", the
PRHC and Fleming College.

Mr. Crystal says they chose three of the most compelling breach of
privacy stories to go ahead with the suit, but adds all those who
had their medical files breached are included.  Last year,
hospital officials sent out letters of apology to 280 patients who
had their files accessed.

Mr. Crystal says one of the most concerning cases involves a
former hospital staff member who was also a teacher at Fleming
College.  In the statement of claim it reads the staff member,
Mandy Edgerton Reid, accessed the medical files of a nursing
student who went to the emergency room in January of last year to
be treated for a severe cough.  She was seen by a physician, given
prescription drugs and was sent home by her teacher, who was
working at the hospital that day.  In the statement of claim it
reads:

"Jessica was later informed that while attending the emergency
department of the defendant hospital, Mandy had accessed her
electronic medical records for the class of RPN (registered
practical nursing) students to view without Jessica's consent."
It goes on to read that, "Mandy improperly accessed numerous
medial records and showed the contents thereof to her students.
Mandy accessed and disseminated patients' records, including but
not limited to patients in palliative care and those coming and
going from the emergency department, to her students."

Because of her employment with Fleming College, the lawsuit names
the institution as a defendant.

Fleming President Dr. Tony Tilly declined to comment on the
matter, saying it was before the courts.

However, hospital officials did release a statement in light of
the lawsuit being filed.  It states the hospital's legal counsel
will review the lawsuit, but refused to provide any further
details about the legal matter.

"The standard to which we hold ourselves, our staff and our
physicians, is of the highest order.  It's not only what our
patients expected of us -- it's our ethical and legal obligation,"
the statement reads.  "PRHC has a zero tolerance policy with
respect to inappropriate access of medical records.  This standard
is not negotiable.  If a breach is detected it is carefully
investigated.  If confirmed, decisive action is taken."

Another case mentioned in the suit involves a woman who visited
the hospital on numerous occasions suffering from injuries
sustained while in an abusive relationship with her husband.  She
left her husband and went into hiding.  When she did attend the
hospital she wanted to be named as an "unknown patient" for fear
her former partner would find her.  She later found out her
medical records were accessed only a few months after she had left
her husband.  In the statement of claim it reads the plaintiff
became "paranoid, anxious and had an increase in blood pressure at
the thought of her husband locating her."  She feared her husband
knew someone at the hospital and had paid to have her information
accessed.

The third case mentioned in the claim involved a woman who went to
the hospital to have an abortion.  She had kept the procedure from
her family and her partner.  At the time, she had recently
completed the RPN course at Fleming and knew many people employed
at the hospital.  She also feared her parents and partner would
become aware of the abortion as a result of the breach.

Mr. Crystal says his firm is continuing to investigate more breach
of privacy complaints related to the matter.  He says anyone who
was contacted by the hospital about their medical files being
breached are urged to contact his firm's investigator, Blair
Nicholson at 613-355-5606.  Mr. Crystal says he will also be
heading to Peterborough in the coming months to conduct more
interviews.

The defendants have 20 days to prepare a statement of defense from
the day the lawsuit was served.


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Merger-Related Suits Consolidated in Jan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada court issued in January 2013 an order consolidating
merger-related lawsuits against Pinnacle Entertainment, 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 December 20, 2012, the Company agreed to acquire Ameristar
Casinos, Inc. ("Ameristar") for $26.50 per share, in an all cash
transaction valued at $2.8 billion, including assumed debt.
Ameristar owns and operates casino facilities in St. Charles near
St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; Council Bluffs, Iowa;
Black Hawk, Colorado; Vicksburg, Mississippi; East Chicago,
Indiana; and Cactus Petes Resort Casino and the Horseshu Hotel and
Casino in Jackpot, Nevada.

On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar
Casinos, Inc. ("Ameristar") was filed in Nevada District Court for
Clark County (hereafter "Nevada District Court"), captioned Joseph
Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action").  The
complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of
Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32,
Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants").  The complaint
generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided
and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in
connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar.  The
action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction
halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder,
including attorneys' fees.  Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed
additional complaints in the same court making essentially the
same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action.

On January 15, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating the
actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single,
consolidated action.  The action is still in the initial stages
and there has been no discovery.

The Company believes that the allegations directed against the
Company lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.pnkinc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Pinnacle
is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related
hospitality and entertainment facilities.


PT DOMUSINDO: Recalls 73,000 PT Domusindo Perdana Drop-Side Cribs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, JC Penney Corp., of Plano, Texas, and manufacturer, PT
Domusindo Perdana, of Indonesia, announced a voluntary recall of
about 73,000 PT Domusindo Perdana drop-side cribs.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib.  Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.

CPSC and the firm are aware of three incidents involving drop side
rails that malfunctioned or detached.  No injuries were reported.

This recall includes 14 models of PT Domusindo Perdana wooden
drop-side cribs.  The name, model number and date codes are
printed on the plywood mattress board.

   Model #     Description                 Date Code
   -------     -----------                 ---------
   343-1509    Jenny Lind Crib             01/1991-12/1997151
   343-3810    Christopher Crib            2001151
   343-5500    Early American Crib         01/1998-12/1999151
   343-6771    Scottsdale Crib             01/1998/12/1999151
   343-7100    Sleigh Crib w/o Rosette     01/2004-12/2006
   343-7134    Sleigh Crib                 01/2001-2/2004
   343-7144    Anniversary Sleigh Crib     01/2002-12/2004
   343-7753    Kristin Crib                01/1998-12/1999
   343-8249    Cameron Crib                01/1998/12/1999
   343-8020    Solid Panel Sleigh Crib     01/2001-12/2002
   343-8070    Roll Bar Convertible Crib   01/2004-12/2005
   343-8200    Spindle Convertible Crib    01/2001-12/2005
   343-8913    Bella 3-in-1 Crib           01/2005-12/2008
   343-8155    Anniversary Convertible     01/2002-12/2006
               Sleigh Crib

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
JCPenney.com and the JCPenney catalog from January 1998 through
December 2008 for between $200 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact customer service at Modus Furniture International to get a
free immobilizer kit that will immobilize the drop side.  The
immobilizer kits will be available in May 2013.  In the meantime,
parents are encouraged to find an alternate, safe sleep
environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or
toddler bed depending on your child's age.  Modus Furniture
International may be reached at (800) 827-2129 from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.savannababy.com/and click on the Recall
tab for more information.


ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Debt Collection Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Murdoch, on behalf of herself and as a class, filed an
action on January 10, 2012, in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia against Rosenberg & Associates, LLC,
and its managing member and partner, Diane Rosenberg, Esq.,
captioned JULIETTE MURDOCH, Plaintiff, v. ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. RWT 12-cv-2234, (D. Md.).

The Complaint alleged that the Defendants' form debt collection
notices, one of which the Defendants sent to Ms. Murdoch, violated
"federal and state laws on a class-wide basis."  Ms. Murdoch
asserted that the debt collection practices violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,
the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the District of
Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

The Rosenberg firm asked the court to dismiss the Complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Ms. Rosenberg
filed a Motion to Dismiss on similar grounds.

Ms. Murdoch filed a Motion to Stay Class Certification Briefing
Pending Discovery.

The Defendants jointly filed a Motion to Strike Class Action
Allegations.

On July 11, 2012, Judge Richard W. Roberts of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order denying in part the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss for improper venue and transferring the case to the
District of Maryland "in the interest of justice" pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1406(a), and noting that "[a]ll remaining motions
are left for decision by the transferee district court."

On August 8, 2012, Ms. Murdoch filed in Maryland District Court a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counts II and IV, dismissing
without prejudice her claims under the MCPA and the DCCPPA as to
both Defendants, thus leaving for resolution the motions to
dismiss as to her causes of action under the FDCPA and the MCDCA.
On the same day, Ms. Murdoch filed a Motion to Certify a Class
Against Defendants, Appoint Named Plaintiff as Class
Representative, and Appoint Class Counsel.

District Judge Roger W. Titus said he will grant Rosenberg LLC's
Ms. Rosenberg's Motions to Dismiss; deny as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion to Stay Class Certification Briefing Pending Discovery;
grant the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations;
and deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Against
Defendants, Appoint Named Plaintiff as Class Representative, and
Appoint Class Counsel.

According to Judge Titus, Ms. Murdoch failed to allege sufficient
factual support in her Complaint that Ms. Rosenberg personally
violated any section of the FDCPA or the MCDCA as a "debt
collector" or otherwise.  Ms. Murdoch also failed to "specifically
identify how [Rosenberg LLC's] conduct was . . . unfair or
unconscionable under section 1692f," and such failure "warrants
dismissal of this claim," he said.

Moreover, Ms. Murdoch's Motion to Certify Fails to Satisfy
Procedural Rules and Substantive Requirements of Rule 23, he
added.

A copy of the District Court's March 22, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/RZfY62from Leagle.com.


SELLING SOURCE: Pfister TCPA Suit Transferred to California
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIANE PFISTER, Plaintiff(s), v. SELLING SOURCE, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s), No. 2:12-CV-408 JCM (NJK), (D. Nev.), is a purported
class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on
Ms. Pfister's allegations that Selling Source, and LeadRev Inc.
engaged in a practice of making unsolicited text message calls to
cellular telephones.

LeadRev, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Florida, moved to transfer or dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that it
lacks sufficient contacts with Nevada for the Nevada District
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it.

District Judge James C. Mahan agreed and held that it lacks
personal jurisdiction over LeadRev and that the Nevada District
Court is not a proper venue for the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.
Accordingly, Judge Mahan granted LeadRev's motion to transfer, and
transferred the case to the Northern District of Florida.  Judge
Mahan said the interest of justice is served in transferring the
case rather than dismissing it. Dismissing the action and
requiring the Plaintiff to file a new action in Florida would
waste both the parties' and the court's resources, he added.

A copy of the District Court's March 20, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/X5ka7Jfrom Leagle.com.


SOUTHERN UNION: Merger-Related Suit in Texas Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated merger-related lawsuit filed in Texas remains
pending, according to Southern Union 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 26, 2012, the Company, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
(ETE), and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), completed their previously
announced merger transaction.  Pursuant to the Second Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 19, 2011,
as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of September 14,
2011 (as amended, the Merger Agreement), among the Company, ETE
and Merger Sub, Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation as an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (the Merger).  The Merger
became effective on March 26, 2012.

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.  The 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.

Southern Union Company -- http://www.sug.com/-- was incorporated
in Delaware in 1932 and is based in Houston, Texas.  The Company
owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural
gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering,
processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural
gas in the United States.  The Company operates in three
reportable segments:  Transportation and Storage, Gathering and
Processing, and Distribution.


SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Still Defends "Price" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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, a
Southern Union Company 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.

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.

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, the Company 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.
The Company believes it has no liability associated with this
proceeding.

Southern Union Company -- http://www.sug.com/-- was incorporated
in Delaware in 1932 and is based in Houston, Texas.  The Company
owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural
gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering,
processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural
gas in the United States.  The Company operates in three
reportable segments:  Transportation and Storage, Gathering and
Processing, and Distribution.


STANDARD FIRE: Morgan Lewis Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
John S. Battenfeld, Esq. -- jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com --
Kristofer T. Henning, Esq., Kenneth M. Kliebard, Esq. --
kkliebard@morganlewis.com -- and Franco A. Corrado, Esq. --
fcorrado@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, report
that the U.S. Supreme Court holds in a 9--0 decision that class
action plaintiffs cannot promise to limit damages in an effort to
remain below the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million federal
jurisdictional threshold.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant in a class
action filed in state court may remove the case to federal court
if, among other requirements, the projected amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.  Notwithstanding that provision, some class
action plaintiffs have successfully avoided CAFA removal by
stipulating that they will not seek more than $5 million on behalf
of the putative class.  On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously held in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles that a
named plaintiff cannot avoid federal CAFA jurisdiction (if CAFA
jurisdiction is otherwise appropriate) by stipulating, prior to
class certification, that the class will not seek aggregate
damages in excess of $5 million. [1] The Court held that a
precertification stipulation by the named plaintiff is not binding
on the absent putative class members.  As a result, the
stipulation is illusory and ineffective in defeating CAFA
jurisdiction.

This decision is significant because it increases the likelihood
that class action defendants will be able to successfully remove
class actions to federal court, where discovery is often more
limited than in state court and class certification standards may
be more stringent.  The Standard Fire decision also eliminates one
tactic class action plaintiffs have been using to avoid litigating
in federal court.

It is likely that the rule announced in Standard Fire will also
apply to other similar tactics used by class action plaintiffs.
For example, assertions by a plaintiff in a complaint about the
amount in controversy have been found by some courts to create a
heightened burden of proof for a defendant to establish that more
than $5 million is in controversy under CAFA.  Although Standard
Fire did not address this specific issue, the Supreme Court held
that district courts, when assessing the amount in controversy for
CAFA purposes, should ignore assertions by the class action
plaintiff attempting to limit the amount in controversy.  The
Supreme Court also noted the importance of CAFA's "primary
objective," which is to ensure that federal courts can consider
"'interstate cases of national importance.'"[2]

The decision does not expressly resolve the divergent case law on
the burden of proof placed on the defendant to establish the
amount in controversy, which ranges from a "preponderance of the
evidence" to a "legal certainty" standard.  Nevertheless, any
damages-limitation stipulation from the named plaintiff should not
result in a heightened burden on the defendant to establish the
amount in controversy, as suggested in decisions such as the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pronouncement in
Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n.[3] Until that issue is
squarely resolved in the courts, removing defendants will be wise
to continue to use extra care in establishing that the projected
amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold.

[1]. Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S.
Mar. 19, 2013), available here.

[2]. Id. at 6 (quoting Sec. 2(b)(2), 119 Stat. 5).

[3]. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.
2007).


STAR SCIENTIFIC: To Vigorously Contest Class Action Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul L. Perito, Esq., Chairman, President, and COO of Star
Scientific, Inc., on March 26 issued the following statement on
behalf of Star Scientific and Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

"[Tuesday] morning, Star Scientific was alerted to the filing of a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond
Division).  The complaint, which lists one named plaintiff,
focuses on the validity of the Company's research and development
related to the active ingredient in the Company's now marketed
dietary supplements and cosmetic products.  Star Scientific is
proud of its worthy science-based products, as well as the fact
that these products are used by thousands of satisfied regular
customers.  We stand behind our scientific research, and that of
other credentialed third-parties, that has been conducted on our
anatabine compound as well as the reporting on the results of that
research.  Accordingly, the Company will vigorously contest each
of the allegations in the complaint.  We are confident that the
meritless nature of this lawsuit will cause it to be ultimately
dismissed."

"In a cursory review of the complaint, the Company noted, with
interest, that the purported lead class action plaintiff is an
individual who purchased 500 shares of Star Scientific stock on
January 23, 2013, and held the stock for only seven days, selling
his 500 shares on January 30, 2013.  For a range of compelling
reasons, it is difficult to conceive of a more inappropriate class
action plaintiff representative.  In addition, the lawsuit seems
to result from a wide, and until now, unsuccessful search by
plaintiffs' law firms seeking to find anyone to bring any kind of
action without regard to its merits."

                             Subpoenas

According to The Associated Press, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
people who bought Star Scientific shares between October 31, 2011
and March 18, 2013.  The complaint says the company made false and
misleading statements about the company's business, operational
and compliance policies.

Star Scientific said that the company, its directors, and others
received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  The company said it believes the main focus
of the investigation is its securities, including private
placements and related transactions dating to 2006.  In a form
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Star said it is
responding to the subpoenas and plans to cooperate fully with the
investigation.

The Richmond, Va., company received the subpoenas in late January
and February.  It hired a law firm to conduct an internal
investigation.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Bank's appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit titled Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et
al., remains pending, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s March
1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a putative state-wide
class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees
charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law.  The case, Griner et al. v. Synovus
Bank, et al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts.  The Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges
constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury
laws.  Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges
constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and
Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits.
On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.  On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered
an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
Gwinnett County State Court.  Synovus Bank subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss.  On February 22, 2012, the state court entered
an order denying the motion to dismiss.  On March 1, 2012, the
state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review
thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of
Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to
dismiss.

On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for
interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals.  On
April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's
application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order
denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss.  On April 11, 2012
Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal.  Oral arguments were
heard in the case on September 19, 2012.  The case remains pending
on appeal.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Childs" Class Suit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and
Trust et al., is currently in discovery, according to Synovus
Financial Corp.'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, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company ("CB&T") were named as defendants in a putative
multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus
Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.  The case, Childs et al.
v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment
for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus
Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its
POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting
from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs'
accounts.  On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to
a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida,
In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.  The
Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011.  The
Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on November 22, 2011.  On July 26, 2012, the court denied the
motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as
to CB&T.  Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the
amended complaint on September 24, 2012.  The case is currently in
discovery.

On January 25, 2012, Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in
another putative multi-state class action relating to the manner
in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.  The
case, Green et al. v. Synovus Bank, was filed in the Middle
District of Georgia, Columbus Division, and asserts claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the
plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft
charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller
machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post
payments to the plaintiffs' accounts.  On February 14, 2012,
Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 8,
2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add a claim
under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.  On March 22, 2012,
Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
April 19, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring the
case to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of
Florida, In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No.
2036.  On April 20, 2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately
filed objections to the Conditional Transfer Order.  On May 4 and
5, 2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed motions to
vacate the Conditional Transfer Order.  On August 3, 2012, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the case
transferred to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern
District of Florida, In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
MDL No. 2036.

On September 5, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Childs case filed an
amended complaint that added Richard Green, the named plaintiff
from the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case, as a named plaintiff
in the Childs case.  As a result, the parties advised the court
that the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case should be dismissed
without prejudice.  On November 8, 2012, the court entered an
order dismissing without prejudice the Green case.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Shareholder Derivative Suit Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp.'s settlement of a federal shareholder
derivative lawsuit was approved in February 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 July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on
June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National
Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and
the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock
price in violation of the federal securities laws.  Lead
Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to
Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the
impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition.
The Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in
an unspecified amount.  On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the
amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The
Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the
opportunity to submit a further amended complaint.  The Lead
Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July
27, 2011.  On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part that Motion to Dismiss.  On April 19, 2012, the Defendants
filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22,
2012 order.  On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a written
order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.  The Defendants
filed their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21,
2012.  Discovery in this case is ongoing.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-3069) (the "Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit"),
against certain current and/or former directors and executive
officers of Synovus.  The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary
duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the
Securities Class Action.  The plaintiff is seeking to recover
damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive
relief.

On December 1, 2009, at the request of the parties, the Court
consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus
Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF, holding that the two cases
involve "common issues of law and fact."  The Plaintiff in the
Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit served a verified amended
shareholder derivative complaint on June 5, 2012.  On July 25,
2012, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
shareholder derivative complaint.  Discovery in this case is
ongoing.

On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia (the "State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit"), against certain current and/or former directors and
executive officers of Synovus.  The State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their
fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as
alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit.  The
plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.  On June 17, 2010, the
Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit.

On October 4, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit reached an agreement in principal to settle,
subject to the Court's approval, the outstanding derivative claims
purportedly brought on behalf of Synovus in the Federal
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the State Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit.  On November 14, 2012, the parties to the
Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit executed a Stipulation of
Settlement memorializing the principal terms of their proposed
settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement").  On January 8,
2013, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed
Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement was finally
approved at a hearing held on February 26, 2013.

The Company says there are significant uncertainties involved in
any potential class action and derivative litigation.  Synovus may
seek to mediate the Securities Class Action in order to determine
whether a reasonable settlement can be reached.  In the event the
Securities Class Action is not settled, Synovus and the
individually named defendants collectively intend to vigorously
defend themselves against the Securities Class Action.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Visa Awaits Okay of Interchange Fee Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa is awaiting approval of its settlement of a multidistrict
interchange litigation, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Synovus is a member of the Visa USA network and received shares of
Visa Class B common stock in exchange for its membership interest
in Visa USA in conjunction with the public offering by the Visa
IPO in 2008.  Visa members have indemnification obligations with
respect to the Covered Litigation.  Visa Class B shares are
subject to certain restrictions until March 25, 2011 or settlement
of the Covered Litigation.  As of December 31, 2012, all of the
Covered Litigation had not been settled.  Visa has established a
litigation escrow to fund settlement of the Covered Litigation.
The litigation escrow is funded by proceeds from Visa's conversion
of Class B shares.

The Visa IPO was completed in March 2008.  Immediately following
completion of the Visa IPO in March 2008, Visa redeemed a portion
of the Class B shares of its common stock held by Visa members.
Synovus recognized a pre-tax gain of $38.5 million on redemption
of a portion of its Visa Class B shares.  During 2008 and 2009,
Synovus reduced its contingent liability for its indemnification
obligation upon events of Visa's funding of the litigation escrow
through conversion of Class B shares.

In November 2009, Synovus sold its remaining Visa Class B shares
to another Visa USA member financial institution for $51.9 million
and recognized a gain on sale of $51.9 million.  In conjunction
with the sale, Synovus entered into a derivative contract with the
purchaser which provides for settlements between the parties based
upon a change in the ratio for conversion of Visa Class B shares
to Visa Class A shares.  The fair value of the derivative
liability of $3.0 million and $9.1 million, at December 31, 2012,
and 2011, respectively, is based on an estimate of Visa's exposure
to liability based upon probability-weighted potential outcomes of
the Covered Litigation, and with respect to December 31, 2012,
includes the present value of estimated future fees paid to the
derivative counterparty, and the estimated impact of a ten bps
decrease in credit interchange fees for an eight-month period
beginning in mid-2013.

Synovus paid settlements of approximately $9.9 million and
$888,000 to the derivative counterparty in connection with
conversion rate changes in February 2012 and August 2012,
respectively.  The conversion rate changed each of these times in
connection with Visa's deposit of funds to the litigation escrow.
For the year ended December 31, 2012, the $6.3 million
indemnification charges included a $5.8 million increase in the
fair value of the derivative liability and $466 thousand of fees
payable to the derivative counterparty.

On July 13, 2012, Visa announced that it had signed a memorandum
of understanding with the class plaintiffs in the multi-district
interchange litigation, which obligated the parties to enter into
a settlement agreement, and on October 19, 2012, Visa announced
that a settlement agreement had been executed to resolve class
plaintiff's claims.  Among other things, the settlement agreement
provides for settlement payments of approximately $6.6 billion, of
which Visa's share will be approximately $4.4 billion, and further
provides for distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to
ten basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which
otherwise would have been paid to card issuers and which
effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time.
The eight month period would begin sixty days after completion of
the court ordered period during which individual class members may
opt out of the proposed settlement.

These announcements have been factored into the fair value
determination as of December 31, 2012, using the probability model
described in Note 16 -- Fair Value Accounting.  Management
believes that the estimate of Synovus' exposure to the Visa
indemnification and fees associated with the Visa Derivative is
adequate based on current information, including Visa's recent
announcements.  However, future developments in the litigation
could require potentially significant changes to Synovus'
estimate.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Release of Filings on Guantanamo Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ordered the government to release, with some exceptions,
unclassified public versions of the materials filed in a former
Guantanamo Bay detainee's case.

In a March 8 ruling that was recently unclassified, U.S. District
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., partially rejected
the government's bid to shield certain records on Somali native
Mohammed Sulaymon Barre, and largely granted Barre's cross-motion
to compel disclosure.

"The court is troubled by the government's apparent lack of
urgency in issuing public versions of classified materials filed
in Guantanamo proceedings," Lamberth wrote.

"The government's arguments are unavailing and largely boil down
to this: 'Declassification is complicated and time consuming and
we already have a lot of work - please don't pile on.'"

Lamberth said that while he "is sympathetic to the government's
position . . . classified filings should be made available to the
public, with appropriate redactions."

Barre was arrested and detained in 2001 while living as a refugee
in Pakistan.  He was interrogated about his former job at a
Somali-based financial institution that purportedly sent money to
and from customers in Pakistan.  The Pakistani government
suspected Barre had ties to Al Wafa, an Islamic foundation accused
of terrorist activities.

But the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the petition
challenging his detention in court, says Barre is believed to have
been sold to the United States for a bounty.

Once in the custody of U.S. forces, Barre was detained at military
bases in Kandahar and Bagram before being transferred to the
prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he claims he was tortured.

He was released in 2009, leading a judge to dismiss his habeas
petition as moot.

As his appeal was pending, Barre sought a court order forcing the
government to publicly disclose three of his classified filings.
He claimed it "would be highly misleading for the public to have
available to it only the government's selective version" of the
circumstances surrounding his capture and detention at Guantanamo.

The government, however, fought to keep many of the documents
classified, citing national security concerns.  Specifically, it
asked the court to shield the location of an al-Qaida training
facility, along with an unspecified word that it claimed had been
mistakenly disclosed in a court filing.

Judge Lamberth said these pieces of information are not protected,
because they "have been officially acknowledged and remain
publicly available."

If the disclosure was inadvertent, as the government claimed,
Lamberth questioned why the government "made no attempt to remove
or replace" the public document with a redacted version.

Lamberth also chided the government for dragging its feet on
disclosing public versions of the three classified filings simply
because Barre has since been released and his petition dismissed.

"[T]his ignores the inherent public interest in Guantanamo
litigation generally, and in the facts related to the release of
this detainee in particular," Lamberth wrote.

"Here, petitioner's documents have remained essentially under seal
for 42 months, and the court sees no reason to write the
government a blank check and allow them to produce the documents
at some unknown point in the future."

Lamberth gave the government 90 days -- longer than the 30-day
deadline sought by Barre -- to produce unclassified public
versions of the three court filings and the reprocessed factual
return.

Allowing the government to indefinitely withhold documents would
provide a "backdoor" for the government to effectively seal a
case, "which is exclusively the prerogative of the court,"
Lamberth wrote.

The judge allowed the government to protect some documents, such
as the litigation materials shown to Barre and his attorney in
detention.

Barre had argued that he should be able to reveal the contents of
those documents following his release in 2009 - an argument
Lamberth called "rather novel" and "meritless."


UNITED TECH: Laid-Off Worker Files Class Action Over Stock Awards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dowling, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that a
laid-off United Technologies Corp. employee filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company on March 22 claiming the company
refused him stock that was due to him through the company's
employee tuition program.

Richard A. Grisafi, 31, started work as an engineer for UTC Fire &
Security in Montvale, N.J., in July 2007 and months later began a
graduate program to further his engineering skills.  He
participated in the company's Employee Scholar Program, which, at
the time, promised about $10,000 in company shares to Mr. Grisafi
if he finished a graduate degree and stayed on for a year after
graduation.  He graduated in 2010 with a master's degree in
mechanical engineering from Manhattan College.  Shortly before his
graduation the company changed the vesting period to three years,
which pushed the date that the stock would be his to October 2013.

About a year before his shares would have vested -- becoming
Mr. Grisafi's property -- the company laid him off, terminating
his employment without cause.  And the stocks never vested.  That
stock award -- according to Mr. Grisafi's case that was filed in
the U.S. District Court in New Jersey -- should not have been lost
if the employee left his job involuntarily, which is what happened
in August 2012.

The 141 shares of UTC stock were valued at about $71.13 each when
he would have received them.  On March 26, the shares were valued
at about $13,000.

"I withheld my end of the bargain and I think they should too,"
Mr. Grisafi said on March 26.  "They seemed to not care."

Ian Race, a UTC spokesman, said that the company hasn't been
served with the lawsuit yet and so doesn't have a comment.  He
said that the current Employee Scholar Program doesn't issue stock
awards of the sort that Mr. Grisafi received.

In a letter sent to Mr. Grisafi in November, the company's
assistant general counsel John C. Foley argued that the layoff
counted as a termination of employment that made the stock award
invalid, quoting a 2010 program document that said the stock "will
be forfeited in the event of termination from employment prior to
vesting except in the case of disability of death."

"There is no disputing that your employment was terminated for
reasons other than disability or death," Mr. Foley wrote to
Mr. Grisafi.  "Consequently, this provision governs."

Mr. Grisafi's lawsuit doesn't identify other plaintiffs that would
be included in the class of people affected by the company's
actions, but it estimates that the group could include "in excess
of 5,000 persons."

The lawsuit claims that United Technologies violated the U.S.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as well as caused
a breach of contract, a breach of fiduciary duties, and a
violation of a good-faith agreement, among other claims.  Mr.
Grisafi's lawyer G. Martin Meyers said that he hopes the class-
action complaint will help identify more former employees in the
same position.

"Making the decision to further your education is an important
life decision, and when someone dangles a carrot in front of your
head to induce you do to that, they should give you the carrot,"
Mr. Meyers said.

"It comes down to trampling on the rights of employees and kicking
people when they're down," he said.  "Corporations have the right
to engage in their reorganizations and downsizings, but they also
have the legal obligation to respect people's legal rights when
they do it."

The employee scholar program has helped company employees earn
more than 34,540 degrees since 1996, spending more than $1 billion
on tuition, books and supplies for employees, said Mr. Race of
UTC.  The program, which has won numerous national awards, has
8,000 current participants.


WEST MUSIC: Recalls 6,500 Basic Beat Egg-Shaker Toy Instruments
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bongo Logic Development LTD, of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,500 Basic Beat BB201 standard egg shakers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The outer "end cap" that is glued onto the top, smallest part of
the egg can come off, posing a small part choking or aspiration
hazard.

West Music has received three reports of ends popping off, with no
injuries reported.

These recalled egg-shaker toy instruments are plastic, egg-shaped
instruments sold in five colors: yellow, green, blue, red and
purple.  The toy instruments are about the size of small eggs and
have a "Basic Beat" label printed on the front of the product.
The product is marked for children ages 3 years and older but West
Music is concerned with the possibility of the egg being used by
or near a younger child.  The toy instruments have Lot Number
0E0212 located on the bottom of the roundest part of the egg.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/ecTSCJ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at West
Music stores, West Music Catalog, Westmusic.com, Amazon.com and at
West Music booths at summer workshops from July 2012 through
October 2012 for about $1.50 each.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled egg shaker toy
instruments away from young children and contact West Music for a
free replacement product.  West Music may be reached at (800) 397-
9378 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, e-mail atservice@music.com or online at
http://www.westmusic.com/and click on Help & FAQs and Recalls for
more information.


WHITEWATER TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 2,200 Kayaking and Rafting Helmets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Whitewater Technology Associates, LC, doing
business as Whitewater Research & Safety Institute (WRSI), of Park
City, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 Whitewater
Kayaking and Rafting Helmets in the United States of America and
200 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The chinstrap buckle can fail, posing a head injury hazard to
users.

WRSI is aware of 10 incidents of chinstrap failures.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves WRSI Moment and Trident models whitewater
kayaking and rafting helmets.  They have a black chinstrap with a
black plastic buckle and were sold in sizes S/M and M/L.  "WRSI"
is printed under or on top of the helmet's visor.  WRSI's "Wave
Logo" is visible on the back of the Moment helmet.  "WRSI" is
printed vertically on the back of the Trident helmet.  The part
number is printed on the hang tag of both models.  Helmets in the
following colors or color combinations and sizes, and with the
part numbers listed below, are being recalled:

  Model     Color and Size       Part Number
  -----     --------------       -----------
  Moment    Glossy red - S/M     852145003633 and 852145003657
  (w/ and   Glossy red - M/L     852145003602 and 852145003619
  without   Matte black - S/M    852145003626 and 852145003640
  vents)    Matte black - M/L    852145003589 and 852145003596

  Trident   Black Rasta - M/L    852145003411

            Black with           852145003466
            pinstripe - S/M

            Black with           852145003367
            pinstripe - M/L

            Blue/Carbon - S/M    852145003459

            Blue/Carbon - M/L    852145003398

            Green/Army green     852145003480
            - S/M

            Green/Army green     852145003381
            - M/L

            Green/Carbon - S/M   852145003442
            Green/Carbon - M/L   852145003404
            Red/Burnt red - S/M  852145003473
            Red/Burnt red - M/L  852145003374

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/MTb2A9

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Northwest River Supplies and sporting goods stores nationwide and
online at www.whitewaterhelmet.com from March 2012 through
November 2012 for between $140 and $170.

Consumers should stop using the helmets immediately and contact
WRSI for a free replacement or full refund.  WRSI may be reached
toll-free at (888) 441-1041, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain
Time Monday through Friday, e-mail buckle@whitewaterhelmet.com, or
online at http://www.whitewaterhelmets.com/and click on "Safety
Alert" at the center of the home page for more information.


                             *********

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  * * *