---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 31, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 216

                               Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend Suits in N.Y. and Conn.
ADT CORP: Still Awaits Approval of ADT Dealer Suit Settlement
ADT CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
AMERIGROUP CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Colo. Court Dismissed Securities Suits in Sept.

AUTO CLUB: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Commission Scheme
BHP BILLITON: Appeal From Colombia Suit Dismissal Still Pending
BHP BILLITON: "Choles" Class Suit Still Pending in Colombia
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles Class Action in California
COLORTYME: Faces Class Action Over Computer Spyware

CREDIT SUISSE: Lawyers in Dispute Over "Confidential" Documents
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: "Schwartz" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in April
FACEBOOK: Faces Class Action Over Counterfeit Ads
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Prisoner Transport Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Lamotrigine

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Willingham" Suit
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Suit in New Jersey
J. ALEXANDER'S CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
MANNKIND CORP: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Dec. 17

MILLINOCKET, ME: Gets Favorable Ruling in Insurance Class Action
MOSAIC CO: To Seek Supreme Ct. Review in Potash Antitrust Suit
NEW ENGLAND: Lipton Law Firm Files Tainted Steroid Shot Suit
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
ON-SITE MANAGER: Settles Class Action in N.Y. for $1.1MM

OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Two Law Firms File Class Action in N.Y.
PATHEON INC: Customer Seeks Indemnification for Class Suit Costs
PHARMACIA CORP: Mass. Town Files Class Action Over PCBs
PREMIUM NUTRITIONAL: Recalls Select ZuPreem FruitBlend Bird Foods
RITE AID: Awaits Final OK of Assistant Managers' Suit Settlement

RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California
RITE AID: Discovery in "Indergit" Class Suit Currently Ongoing
SHELL OIL: Seeks Reversal of Consumer Class Suit Dismissal
T-MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Automated Collection Calls
TICKETMASTER CANADA: Courts Approve Class Action Settlement

UNIQUE BABY: Recalls 975 ValcoBaby Booster Seats Due to Fall Risk
WALTER ENERGY: Ontario Court Denies Request for Class Standing
WELLS CORE: Securities Class Litigation Dismissed in September
WELLS FARGO: Faces Overtime Class Actions
WMS SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages


                          *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend Suits in N.Y. and Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits pending in New York and Connecticut, according to
the Company's September 14, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended July 1,
2012.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing
practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors.  On March
6, 2012, and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other
parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims
substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on
November 10, 2010.  In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the
respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution
and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million.
On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated
with a third case previously pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not
a party.  The Company says it intends to defend each of these
actions vigorously.


ADT CORP: Still Awaits Approval of ADT Dealer Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation is still awaiting final court approval of its
agreement to settle a class action lawsuit commenced by former
dealers in Colorado, according to the Company's September 17,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that the Company had charged to its authorized
dealers upon purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation
related to accounting practices employed by the Company's former
management, which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company
settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and
related parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the
United States and in other countries, including a class action
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado,
alleging breach of contract and other claims related to the
Company's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002
and 2003.  In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict
in the Company's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key
claims.  Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
verdict in the Company's favor in October 2011.  The plaintiffs
have requested that the Supreme Court of Colorado hear an appeal
of the Court of Appeals' decision.  The Supreme Court has not yet
ruled.  The Company expects a favorable resolution of the class
action lawsuit in Colorado.

The parties agreed to settle this matter in April 2012 with no
cash consideration being paid by either side, which is subject to
final court approval.

While it is not possible at this time to predict the final outcome
of the Colorado lawsuit or other lawsuits stemming from dealer
terminations, the Company does not believe these claims will have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


ADT CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation has been named as a defendant in two putative
class actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of
persons who claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls" in
contravention of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  These lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs seeking class
action status and monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who
allegedly received such unsolicited calls, claiming that millions
of calls were made by third party entities on the Company's
behalf.  The Company asserts that such entities were not retained
by, nor authorized to make calls on behalf of, the Company.  These
matters have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois into one civil action.  Each
violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages
($1,500 if a willful violation is shown).

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 17,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
claims and, accordingly, intends to vigorously defend against
these actions.  The Company has made no provision for this
contingency as a reasonable estimate of loss cannot be made at
this time.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigroup Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit in Delaware,
according to the Company's October 2, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 2, 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") was
reached relating to a putative class action lawsuit that had been
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the members of the
board of directors of AMERIGROUP Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Amerigroup"), certain officers of Amerigroup,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., WellPoint, Inc., an Indiana corporation
("WellPoint") and WellPoint Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of WellPoint
("Merger Sub") (collectively, the "Defendants").  In connection
with the MOU, on October 2, 2012, Amerigroup, WellPoint and Merger
Sub entered into an amendment (the "Merger Agreement Amendment")
to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
dated as of July 9, 2012, among WellPoint, Merger Sub and
Amerigroup.  The Merger Agreement Amendment reflects the agreement
of the parties to the MOU.  The board of directors of Amerigroup
approved the Merger Agreement Amendment and determined that the
Merger Agreement Amendment is advisable, fair to and in the best
interests of Amerigroup and Amerigroup's stockholders.

Other than as provided in the Merger Agreement Amendment, the
Merger Agreement, as filed with the SEC on July 9, 2012, as
Exhibit 2.1 to Amerigroup's Current Report on Form 8-K, remains in
full force and effect as originally executed on July 9, 2012.  The
description of the Merger Agreement Amendment and the transactions
contemplated thereby does not purport to be complete and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the Merger Agreement
Amendment.

                          Other Events

On October 2, 2012, the Defendants entered into the MOU with the
plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit that had been filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery to settle the lawsuit, subject
to court approval.  In the MOU, the Defendants agreed that:

   * WellPoint, Merger Sub and Amerigroup will amend
     Section 7.3(b) (Fees and Expenses) of the Merger Agreement
     to reduce the termination fee payable by Amerigroup to
     WellPoint under the circumstances described in the Merger
     Agreement from $146 million to $97 million;

   * Amerigroup will delay the special meeting of the
     stockholders for the stockholder vote to adopt the Merger
     Agreement (the "Special Meeting") from October 9, 2012, to
     October 23, 2012; and

   * Amerigroup will disclose on a Current Report on Form 8-K
     (which is this Current Report on Form 8-K) that the
     Amerigroup board of directors, pursuant to the Merger
     Agreement and consistent with its fiduciary duties, is
     prepared to receive and consider in good faith any inquiries
     and superior proposals (as defined in the Merger Agreement)
     to purchase Amerigroup.

As a result of the MOU, Amerigroup intends to file and mail to
stockholders a supplement to its definitive proxy statement
advising stockholders of the details relating to the MOU, the
Merger Agreement Amendment and the postponement of the Special
Meeting.

Amerigroup and the Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to
the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been asserted,
in the lawsuit.  The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not,
and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any Defendant.  However, solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, Amerigroup and its
board of directors agreed to the MOU.  The parties considered it
desirable that these actions be settled to avoid the substantial
burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the matter.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Colo. Court Dismissed Securities Suits in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AspenBio Pharma, Inc. disclosed in its September 18, 2012, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
United States District Court for Colorado dismissed in September
two lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws.

On September 13, 2012, the United States District Court for
Colorado dismissed and entered judgment without prejudice in the
class action lawsuit (Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT) originally
filed in October 2010 against AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (the
"Company"), and certain officers and directors of the Company
during the purported class period.  The lawsuit was captioned John
Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al.  This federal securities class
action was originally filed on behalf of all persons, other than
the defendants, who purchased common stock of the Company during
the period between February 22, 2007, and July 19, 2010,
inclusive.  The complaint included allegations of violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), against all defendants, and
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants related to the Company's blood-based appendicitis rule-
out test in development known as AppyScore(TM).  The Order to
dismiss the action found in favor of the company and all of the
individual defendants.

On September 17, 2012, the United States District Court for
Colorado dismissed and entered judgment without prejudice the
lawsuit (Case No. 11-cv-00163-REB-KMT) originally filed in
September 2010 against the Company, by an individual investor.
The lawsuit was captioned Mark Chipman v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc.
This federal securities action included allegations of violations
of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and violations
of Sections 25400 and 25500 of the California Corporations Code,
related to the Company's development of AppyScore.  The Order to
dismiss the action found in favor of the Company.

"We are very pleased with the court's decisions," stated Steve
Lundy, President and CEO of AspenBio, in a statement.  "We
continue to execute on our priority of advancing AppyScore(TM)
toward commercialization."

                      About AspenBio Pharma

AspenBio Pharma, Inc. is an in vitro diagnostic company focused on
the clinical development and commercialization of its lead
product, AppyScore.  AppyScore is a unique blood-based test with
projected high sensitivity and negative predictive value that is
designed to aid in the identification of patients at low risk for
acute appendicitis, allowing for more conservative patient
management.  AppyScore is initially being developed for pediatric,
adolescent and young adult patients with abdominal pain as this
population is at the highest risk for appendicitis as well having
the highest risk of the long-term health effects associated with
CT imaging.  For more information, visit
http://www.aspenbiopharma.com/


AUTO CLUB: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Commission Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog disclosed that a former Automobile Club of
Southern California insurance agent filed a class action lawsuit
on Oct. 24 against the Auto Club over an illegal commission scheme
designed to penalize employees who sell policies to people who
previously did not have insurance.  Auto Club agents can lose
hundreds of dollars if they sell an insurance policy to first time
drivers or others who have not had prior insurance, says Consumer
Watchdog.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that the
Auto Club and its insurance affiliate are violating a California
law, enacted by the voters, that prohibits insurance companies
from discriminating against people who previously did not have
insurance. (Insurance Code section 1861.02(c).)

According to the lawsuit, the illegal commission scheme created
financial incentives that led the company's agents to disconnect
telephone calls from consumers calling for a price quote, or quote
them an artificially inflated premium, and generally to ignore
customers who previously did not have insurance -- all so that the
agents would avoid the commission penalties.

The Auto Club whistleblower, Jill Rogers, was employed by the Auto
Club in various capacities for 15 years.  Her lawsuit, brought on
behalf of a class of current and former Auto Club insurance
agents, seeks to stop Auto Club from continuing the illegal
commission scheme, and to require Auto Club to pay back
commissions that Auto Club improperly withheld from agents when
they sold policies to first time drivers and others who have not
had insurance previously.

"The law says we have to treat all customers the same, regardless
of whether they had insurance or not.  It is wrong to penalize
agents for complying with the law," said Ms. Rogers, the former
Auto Club agent representing other agents in the class action
lawsuit.  "I was a loyal employee of the Auto Club and became
deeply disappointed when my superiors refused to address my
concerns about the company's practices."

"Auto Club's policy harms its own employees, and it harms
consumers.  Auto Club is disregarding the law here and it must be
stopped," said attorney Tim Blood, of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP,
which represents Ms. Rogers along with lawyers for Consumer
Watchdog, the non-profit consumer advocacy group.  "Auto Club's
agents who follow the law are entitled to be paid their full
commission."

Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and co-counsel for
Ms. Rogers noted that Consumer Watchdog had sued the company in
2002 for imposing a surcharge on motorists who could not show
proof of previous insurance coverage.  The company settled the
matter in 2008, paying $22.5 million to approximately 120,000
policyholders.  "The Auto Club is a Southern-California based
membership organization that is supposed to put the interests of
its policyholders first," Mr. Rosenfield said. "It is very
disturbing that the Auto Club is trying to do indirectly what it
knows it is forbidden by law from doing directly."

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/MWgFjg

Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org-- is a
nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in
Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA.

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP -- http://www.bholaw.com--
specializes in the nationwide prosecution of class action
lawsuits.


BHP BILLITON: Appeal From Colombia Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The non-government organisation, Corporacion Colombia Transparente
(CCT), brought three separate class actions (Popular Actions
1,029, 1,032 and 1,048) against various defendants in connection
with the privatisation of 50 per cent of the Cerrejon Zona Norte
mining complex in Colombia in 2002.  Two of the actions were
dismissed leaving only the action against Cerrejon Zona Norte SA
(CZN).  The mining complex is currently owned by CZN and Carbones
del Cerrejon Limited (CDC).  BHP Billiton Limited's subsidiary
Billiton Investment 3 BV owns a 33 per cent share in CDC, and the
Company's subsidiaries Billiton Investment 3 BV and Billiton
Investment 8 BV (BHP Billiton Shareholders) collectively own a
33.33 per cent share in CZN.

CCT alleges, in part, that the defendants failed to comply with
the privatisation process, and that the offer price for shares in
CZN between Stages 1 and 2 of the privatisation process was not
correctly adjusted for inflation.

The Company's share of the alleged adjustment of the CZN share
price would be approximately US$4.7 million.  In the alternative,
CCT seeks declaration that the privatisation is null and void and
forfeiture of the transfer price paid, of which the Company's
share would be approximately US$156.7 million.  In both instances,
CCT also seeks unquantified sanctions, including payment of stamp
taxes, an award of 15 per cent of all monies recovered by the
defendants, together with interest on all amounts at the maximum
rate authorised by law.

The CZN action was dismissed on February 18, 2011, the Court
determining that there were no irregularities in the privatisation
of the Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex.

CCT's request for a reconsideration of the judgment was denied.
On March 15, 2011, CCT filed an appeal against the dismissal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 18,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2012.


BHP BILLITON: "Choles" Class Suit Still Pending in Colombia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action arising out of the privatisation of the Cerrejon
Zona Norte mining complex has been brought by Mr. Martin Nicolas
Barros Choles, against various defendants, including Carbones del
Cerrejon Limited (CDC).  Mr. Choles claims that the transfer of
rights by CDC to Cerrejon Zona Norte SA (CZN) was ineffective
because it only involved a transfer of shares and not the transfer
of the underlying rights in the properties and assets used in the
Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex.  Consequently, he is seeking
orders that CDC pays for the use and lease of the properties and
assets until November 2009, and that from that date the properties
and assets of the Cerrejon project revert to the State.

BHP Billiton Limited's subsidiary Billiton Investment 3 BV owns a
33 per cent share in CDC, and the Company's subsidiaries Billiton
Investment 3 BV and Billiton Investment 8 BV (BHP Billiton
Shareholders) collectively own a 33.33 per cent share in CZN.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 18,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2012.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that The Children's
Place Retail Stores Inc. reached a deal on Oct. 25 to give
discounts on future purchases to a proposed class of California
consumers who claim that the clothing retailer improperly
collected the personal information of at least 192,000 customers
during credit card transactions.

A consolidated group of five class representatives who each filed
separate actions against the company agreed to accept a choice of
either a merchandise certificate for 30 percent or $10 off any
purchase made in any The Children's Place retail location in
California.


COLORTYME: Faces Class Action Over Computer Spyware
---------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that furniture
and appliance retailer ColorTyme Inc. was hit on Oct. 25 with a
proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the company sold
computers that had software installed that enabled it to intercept
electronic communications and even take pictures of consumers.

ColorTyme and its franchisees, including Aberdeen ColorTyme
Property LLC, allegedly violated the Federal Wiretap Act as
amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by selling
computers with the software on it.

ColorTyme is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rent-A-Center, with 220
outlets.


CREDIT SUISSE: Lawyers in Dispute Over "Confidential" Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Freeport News reports that lawyers in a $24 billion punitive
class action involving the former Ginn Sur Mer development are
battling over the release of "confidential" documents.

According to court documents obtained by Guardian Business, the
plaintiffs claim that nearly 109,000 pages of documents are being
wrongful designated as confidential or highly confidential.

Ginn Sur Mer, the $4.9 billion mega-mix resort, is one of the
luxury resort communities implicated in this case.

Plaintiffs allege that Ginn Sur Mer was the victim of a "loan to
own" scheme at the hands of Credit Suisse and Cushman & Wakefield.
The goliath case, involving thousands of people, has reached new
roadblocks through the classification of evidence.

"The defendant Credit Suisse has produced more than 49,000 pages
of documents with in excess of 95 percent thereof having been
designated confidential or highly confidential.  The defendant
Cushman & Wakefield has provided more than 58,000 pages of
documents, again with in excess of 95 percent designated
confidential or highly confidential," the document stated.
"Plaintiffs have consulted with defendants requesting that they
stipulate to this motion and no agreement has been obtained."

A key piece of evidence deemed confidential is the deposition of
Michael Miller, a former Cushman & Wakefield employee.  While the
former appraiser originally made a statement in support of the
plaintiffs, Cushman & Wakefield have submitted a deposition that
contradicts these statements, saying the appraisals were not
misleading or illegal.

Whether false appraisals occurred is fundamental to the case.

The lawsuit alleges that Credit Suisse encouraged loans based on
inflated appraisals performing by Cushman & Wakefield, which
essentially overburdened the resorts and caused them to fail.

Meanwhile, other court documents obtained by Guardian Business
show Cushman & Wakefield has requested documents of their own.

In an order submitted to the United States District Court of
Idaho, the appraiser is trying to compel the release of documents.
It argues that the documents are necessary to respond to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

"Despite C&W's ongoing and diligent efforts to conduct class
certification discovery in order to respond to said motion, C&W
has encountered a number of road blocks with respect to obtaining
relevant documentations from plaintiffs.  As a result, and despite
its meet and confer efforts, C&W has been forced to file the
instant motion to compel in order to obtain class certification
documents, which are necessary to permit C&W to adequately and
fully respond to the motion to certify," it stated.

The firm is also seeking a reimbursement of attorneys' fees and
costs for having to push forward on this motion.

This sparring over documents likely means more delays in the high-
profile case.

L.J. Gibson, a former investor and property owner in Ginn Sur Mer,
is serving as the main plaintiff in The Bahamas, representing
perhaps dozens of other stakeholders.

The other resorts seeking damages include Tamarack Resort,
Yellowstone Club and Lake Las Vegas.

Ginn Sur Mer was intended to comprise nearly 900 homes, two
championship golf courses, 4,400 condominium hotel units, two
marinas, a casino, a medical facility and a private airport
expansion.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: "Schwartz" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings, LLC said in its September 18, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that a class action lawsuit captioned
Shirlee Schwartz v. Dynegy Inc., et al, was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiffs shortly after filing.

On April 2, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
bondholders was filed in the Southern District of New York
captioned Shirlee Schwartz v. Dynegy Inc., et al, however,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case shortly after filing.


FACEBOOK: Faces Class Action Over Counterfeit Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Hayley Tsukayama, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a
small sports retailer in New Jersey has brought a class-action
lawsuit against Facebook saying that counterfeit ads on the site
have substantially hurt its business.

Krystal's is a sporting goods store in Albuquerque that has a
Facebook page and pays for sponsored ads on Facebook, according to
a complaint filed with the District Court of New Mexico.  In a
complaint filed earlier last week, the retailer said that sales of
its jerseys and other sports merchandise have been undermined by
ads for cheaper, counterfeit jerseys.

The suit also names adSage, a company that helps Chinese companies
to advertise on Facebook, and DHgate, a Web site that advertises
"Chinese wholesale products."

When reached for comment on the lawsuit, a Facebook spokesman
said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and will defend
ourselves vigorously."  Neither adSage nor DHgate could
immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.

Counterfeit online advertising is a problem across the Web,
especially as many sites that sell or market counterfeit goods are
located overseas.  In many cases, even when U.S. officials close
down offending sites, companies simply buy Web addresses with
different names -- leading to what many call a "whack-a-mole"
problem.

Facebook combats these bad advertisements with a team dedicated to
taking down counterfeit ads when they are reported by copyright
holders and users.  The company also monitors the use of fake
profiles, trying to verify when suspicious profiles are fronts for
bots or illegal companies -- a tactic that many bad actors use on
the site.  Facebook is also a founding member of the Ads Integrity
Alliance, a group working to set up industry standards on how to
deal with counterfeit and malware-laden ads.

Facebook spokesman Frederick Wolens told The Washington Post in
June that less than 0.5 percent of the network's users -- which,
at that point, was around 4.5 million users -- experienced spam on
any given day.

But, the lawsuit contends, sites that sell legitimate sports and
luxury goods may be particularly vulnerable to the presence of ads
from counterfeiters.  Those ads not only hurt business because of
their placement next to legitimate, more expensive goods on
Facebook pages, Krystal's said, but may have also damaged
retailers' reputations.

In some cases, the retailer said, customers have associated the
counterfeit ads with its store, incorrectly assuming that the ads
mean Krystal's has a relationship with the counterfeiters.

"Krystal's has inadvertently been placed in the untenable position
of actually lending credence to the counterfeit ads, by virtue of
Facebook's display of those advertisements on Krystal's page," the
complaint read.  "Krystal's has lodged public and private
complaints with Facebook, but has received no meaningful reply or
response."

This is not the first time that Facebook has faced scrutiny over
counterfeit ads.  As the Post reported in June, Eric Feinberg, a
social marketer, started noticing bad ads on his Facebook page in
January 2012.  He went on to found Fans Against Kounterfeit
Enterprise, or FAKE, a group calling for the government to require
sites to review ads before they go up and to make sure that
consumers aren't tricked by bad ads.

Advertising in general has been a key issue for Facebook, which
saw shares surge after earnings reported on Tuesday showed the
company's ad revenue is higher than expected.  Its mobile
advertising efforts -- which largely consist of sponsored posts
from companies -- performed particularly well, assuaging some
concerns.  The social network has also been experimenting with
e-commerce and user-generated revenue, launching features that let
users pay to promote their own posts and send gifts to friends
through Facebook.


FLEETMATICS GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Prisoner Transport Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetmatics Group PLC seeks dismissal of a class action lawsuit
brought by U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al., according to the
Company's October 2, 2012, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et. al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et. al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20.  The complaint alleges that the Company
recorded thousands of telephone calls in violation of Florida
Statutes Section 934.03.  The complaint seeks certification of a
putative class of all individuals and businesses residing in
Florida who spoke with any representatives of the Company's
offices in Florida on the telephone and had their telephone
conversations recorded without their consent or advance notice,
from the date of the earliest recording by the Company through the
present.  The complaint seeks statutory damages, injunctive
relief, attorney fees, costs and interest.  Florida Statutes
Section 934.10 permits an aggrieved person to recover "liquidated
damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of
violation or $1,000, whichever is higher."  The Company removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner
Transport, et. al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et. al., Case No.
8:12-CV-2079.  The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on
September 20, 2012.

The Company says this matter is in its very early stages, but
there can be no assurance that this matter will not have a
material adverse effect on its business, operating results or
financial condition.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Lamotrigine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GlaxoSmithKline and Teva
Pharmaceuticals conspired to restrict competition and raise prices
for lamotrigine (Lamictal), a $2 billion-a-year blockbuster drug,
a union claims in a federal antitrust class action.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Willingham" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by Natalie Willingham,
according to the Company's October 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
August 31, 2012.

A class action arising out of the processing system intrusion was
filed against the Company on April 4, 2012, by Natalie Willingham
(individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class).
Specifically, Ms. Willingham alleged that the Company failed to
maintain reasonable and adequate procedures to protect her
personally identifiable information ("PII") which she claims
resulted in two fraudulent charges on her credit card in March
2012.  Further, Ms. Willingham asserted that the Company failed to
timely notify the public of the data breach.  Based on these
allegations, Ms. Willingham asserted claims for negligence,
violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act, willful
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, negligent violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, violation of Georgia's Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence per se, breach of third-
party beneficiary contract, and breach of implied contract.
Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  On May 14, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On July 11, 2012, Plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint, and on July 16,
2012, the Court granted that motion.  Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 16, 2012.  The amended complaint does not add
any new causes of action.  Instead, it adds two new named
Plaintiffs (Nadine and Robert Hielscher) and drops Plaintiffs'
claim for negligence per se.  On August 16, 2012, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says it cannot
predict the outcome of the matter, but the Company intends to
defend the matter vigorously.  The Company has not recorded a loss
accrual related to this matter because the Company has not
determined that a loss is probable.  Currently, the Company does
not have sufficient information to estimate the amount or range of
possible loss associated with this matter.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of New Jersey building
codes, according to the Company's September 18, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit.  The
action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Gloucester County.  The action was initially filed
on May 8, 2006, alleging that the HVAC systems installed in
certain of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New
Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue.  On
December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification;
the potential class is 1,065 homes.  The Company filed a request
to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification
decision.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and the
Company filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey
Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate
Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages
pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act.  The Company believes there
is insurance coverage available to it for this action.  While the
Company has determined that a loss related to this case is not
probable, it is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss
related to this matter at this time.

On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries of the Company filed a
separate action seeking indemnification against the various
manufacturers and subcontractors implicated by the class action.


J. ALEXANDER'S CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
J. Alexander's Corporation disclosed in its September 18, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that it entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a
merger-related class action lawsuit.

On September 18, 2012, J. Alexander's Corporation, a Tennessee
corporation ("J. Alexander's" or the "Company") issued a joint
press release with Fidelity National Financial, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Fidelity") announcing the settlement of a previously
disclosed class action lawsuit related to the proposed acquisition
of J. Alexander's by affiliates of Fidelity pursuant to that
certain Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
July 30, 2012 (the "Restated Merger Agreement"), by and among J.
Alexander's, Fidelity, New Athena Merger Sub, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Fidelity
("Merger Sub"), American Blue Ribbon Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect, majority-owned subsidiary of Fidelity
("ABRH"), Athena Merger Sub, Inc., a Tennessee corporation and a
direct, wholly owned subsidiary of ABRH, and Fidelity Newport
Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an
indirect, majority-owned restaurant operating subsidiary of
Fidelity, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated September 5,
2012, by and among J. Alexander's, Fidelity and Merger Sub.

On September 17, 2012, J. Alexander's, Fidelity and the other
named defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding
("MOU") with the plaintiff Advanced Advisors ("Advanced"), a
purported J. Alexander's shareholder, and its counsel in
connection with the class action lawsuit first filed by Advanced
on August 10, 2012, in the Tennessee Chancery Court for Davidson
County, 20th Judicial District, against the members of J.
Alexander's board of directors, J. Alexander's, Fidelity and
Merger Sub.  The MOU reflects the parties' agreement in principle
to resolve the claims by Advanced against J. Alexander's, Fidelity
and the other named defendants in connection with the tender offer
and the Restated Merger Agreement, as amended.  Under the MOU, J.
Alexander's agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in its
Schedule 14D-9 in exchange for a release and settlement by the
class of J. Alexander's shareholders of all claims against J.
Alexander's, its board of directors, Fidelity, Merger Sub and
their respective affiliates and agents.  J. Alexander's filed its
supplemental disclosures with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on September 17, 2012.  Fidelity also filed
corresponding supplemental disclosures with the SEC on that date.

Lonnie J. Stout II, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, said the Company's board continues to recommend that J.
Alexander's shareholders tender their shares into FNF's tender
offer and confirmed that no additional offers have been received
since J. Alexander's announced FNF's revised offer at $14.50.

"FNF's offer at $14.50 per share represents the highest price and
best proposal received by J. Alexander's.  J. Alexander's board of
directors believes that FNF's revised tender offer is in the best
interest of all J. Alexander's shareholders," the CEO said.  The
recommendation was included in the amendment to J. Alexander's
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9.

                     About Fidelity National

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (NYSE:FNF), is a leading
provider of title insurance, mortgage services and restaurant and
other diversified services.  FNF is the nation's largest title
insurance company through its title insurance underwriters --
Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title, Commonwealth Land Title
and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title insurance
policies than any other title company in the United States.  FNF
also owns a 55% stake in American Blue Ribbon Holdings, an owner
and operator of the O'Charley's, Ninety Nine Restaurant, Max &
Erma's, Village Inn, Bakers Square and Stoney River Legendary
Steaks concepts.  In addition, FNF owns a majority stake in Remy
International, Inc., a leading designer, manufacturer,
remanufacturer, marketer and distributor of aftermarket and
original equipment electrical components for automobiles, light
trucks, heavy-duty trucks and other vehicles.  FNF also owns a
minority interests in Ceridian Corporation, a leading provider of
global human capital management and payment solutions.  More
information about FNF can be found at http://www.fnf.com/.

                About J. Alexander's Corporation

J. Alexander's Corporation (NASDAQ: JAX), operates 33 J.
Alexander's restaurants in 13 states: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,
Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.  J. Alexander' is an upscale,
contemporary American restaurant known for its wood-fired cuisine.
The Company's menu features a wide selection of American classics,
including steaks, prime rib of beef and fresh seafood, as well as
a large assortment of interesting salads, sandwiches and desserts.
J. Alexander's also has a full-service bar that features an
outstanding selection of wines by the glass and bottle.  More
information about JAX can be found at http://www.jalexanders.com/


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Knight Capital Group, Inc. on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
the Company during the period from January 19, 2012 through
August 1, 2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Knight is a global financial services firm that provides access to
the capital markets across multiple asset classes to a broad
network of clients, including buy- and sell-side firms and
corporations.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company and certain of its executive officers ("Defendants") made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and accounting practices.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (i) that Knight lacked the deep liquidity it claimed
to have and its capital position was not what the Company
purported it to be; (ii) that Knight's trading technology and
infrastructure were in fact not sophisticated and were not
appropriately checked or tested to ensure they were working
properly (as required by all high frequency broker-dealers with
access to the markets); (iii) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (iv) that, as a result of the
above, Knight's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times, and positive statements about
the Company's business prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Knight common stock between January 19, 2012 and
August 1, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc
Grobler at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Knight common stock during the Class Period of
January 19, 2012 through August 1, 2012, inclusive, and wish to
apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than November 5,
2012.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in
the class action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of
your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Marc Grobler, Esq.
         E-mail: mgrobler@saxenawhite.com
                 jwhite@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


MANNKIND CORP: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Dec. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing is set for December 17, 2012, for the approval of
MannKind Corporation's settlement of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's September 18,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On September 12, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California entered an order preliminarily
approving a proposed settlement of the class action securities
lawsuits consolidated under the caption In re MannKind Corp.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 11-cv-00929-GAF (SSx) (the
"Securities Action"), and entered a separate order preliminarily
approving a proposed settlement of the federal derivative lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re MannKind Corp. Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-05003-GAF-SSx (the "Federal Derivative
Action").  The proposed settlement in the Federal Derivative
Action would also resolve the state derivative lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re MannKind Corporation
Derivative Shareholder Litigation, Case No. BC454931, pending in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the
"State Derivative Action").  The Federal Derivative Action and the
State Derivative Action are collectively referred to as the
Derivative Actions.

In the order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in
the Securities Action, the U.S. District Court approved the Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, the Summary Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, and proof of
claim and release forms.  The Court authorized the distribution of
such forms to all potential settlement class members and appointed
Garden City Group as the settlement administrator to supervise and
administer the notice and claim procedures. The proposed
settlement in the Securities Action remains subject to final
approval by the U.S. District Court.  A final approval hearing is
set for December 17, 2012, before the Honorable Gary Allen Feess
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In the order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in
the Derivative Actions, the U.S. District Court approved the
Notice of Proposed Settlement and of Settlement Hearing (the
"Derivative Actions Notice").  The Derivative Actions Notice and
the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 3, 2012, are also
available on the Company's Web site at
http://www.investors.mannkindcorp.com/ Other information
contained in or accessible through the Company's Web site does not
constitute part of, and is not incorporated into, this Form 8-K.
The proposed settlement in the Derivative Actions remains subject
to final approval by the U.S. District Court.  A final approval
hearing is set for November 12, 2012, before the Honorable Gary
Allen Feess in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.


MILLINOCKET, ME: Gets Favorable Ruling in Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Sambides Jr., writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that the
state Supreme Court has upheld a Town Council vote in 2009 to cut
lifelong life and group hospitalization insurance coverage to 29
retired and present town workers.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the town's civil-court
opposition to a class-action lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs in a
decision released on Oct. 25.  Only Justice Joseph M. Jabar
dissented.

Town Council Chairman John Davis, who was not on the council in
2009, called the verdict "bittersweet."

"I am glad we won it but it is bittersweet in a way because the
retirees have lost something," Mr. Davis said on Oct. 25.  "These
guys are all on fixed incomes and they don't need another expense,
but difficult times call for difficult measures."

"The good thing about this award is that it gives the town the
flexibility to change with the times," he added.  "It was
important for us to win, but I am not going to be dancing in the
street over it."

Citing rising costs, the council voted 7-0 on May 14, 2009, to
eventually end the free health care benefits paid to the retirees.
Since 1999, the town's portion of retiree health benefits had
increased from 89 percent to 112 percent, or from as little as
$282.40 a month in 1999 to $599.44 a month in 2009, under a
typical plan, then-Town Manager Eugene Conlogue said at the time.

A projection done in 1999 predicted the cost of retiree health
benefits rising from $399,000 that year to $837,000 annually by
2009 -- an almost dead-on prediction, he said.  Under the town's
plan, the retirees pay a portion of their health benefits
depending on the plan and number of people covered.  The town pays
the rest, but looks to phase out paying retiree health benefits,
Mr. Conlogue has said.

In their Supreme Court appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the
council vote was a breach of contract and that the state Superior
Court erred in granting judgment to the town.

"Many of the employees allege that the town manager promised them
this benefit when they were hired.  At least one employee alleges
that members of the Town Council acknowledged this benefit as
well," the Supreme Court decision reads.  "They also allege that
it was common knowledge that the town paid lower wages than the
local mill, but compensated for the wage difference by offering a
better benefits package, which included group hospitalization
insurance for life."

However, the court ruled that "the employees have not produced any
evidence that the alleged promises were made by official action of
the Town Council, as opposed to statements of council members or
the town manager."

The Supreme Court rejected the argument the plaintiffs made that
the town perpetuated a contract by continuing to pay benefits to
them despite several changes in contract and pension language.

"On the facts of this case, however, the statements and continued
payments are insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute a
promise [of perpetual payments] by the town," the ruling states.

The court agreed with town arguments that the pension change was a
typical decision made by officials responding well within their
rights to changes in conditions.


MOSAIC CO: To Seek Supreme Ct. Review in Potash Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its October 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended August 31, 2012, that it plans to seek U.S. Supreme Court
review of an appellate court's decision affirming the denial of
its motion to dismiss claims in the Potash Antitrust Litigation.

On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the
"September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States
District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem
Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's
Fertilizer Case"), on October 2, 2008, another complaint (the
"October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10,
2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together,
the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11,
2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser
Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Northern Illinois District
Court") by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft
Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature
Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic
Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated
defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout
the United States.  On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the
cases in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint
against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem
Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case.  On April
3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases.  The
amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed and Seed,
Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased
potash in the United States directly from the defendants during
the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended
consolidated complaint ("Class Period").  The amended consolidated
complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the
defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand;
allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold;
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and
fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct.  The
plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive
relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including
treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The plaintiffs also
seek costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.

On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William
H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the
"Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together
with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the
"Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases
together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively
referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases").  The defendants in
the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in
the Direct Purchaser Cases.  On November 13, 2008, the initial
plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an
additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases.  The factual allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint are substantially identical to those
summarized with respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases.  The
amended consolidated complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was
filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of
all persons who indirectly purchased potash products for end use
during the Class Period in the United States, any of 20 specified
states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified
states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Unjust Enrichment States."  The plaintiffs generally
sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of
damages, including treble damages for violations of the antitrust
laws of the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law,
arising from defendants' alleged continuing agreement,
understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint
of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair
competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer
protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer Fraud
States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits, for
unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment
States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or
full consideration where permitted by applicable state law.  The
plaintiffs also seek costs of lawsuit and reasonable attorneys'
fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On November 3, 2009, the court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a)
for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged
violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan
and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa,
claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law.  The
court denied the Company's and the other defendants' other motions
to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants'
motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state
a claim for relief under that section.  The court, however, stated
that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases
present a difficult question under the pleading standards
enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the
defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal.  On
January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court
issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of
(i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a
plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market
behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a
defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that
was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive
activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving
import trade or import commerce' under applicable law.  On
September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district
court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims.  On December 2, 2011,
the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and on
June 27, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of the
Northern Illinois District Court to deny the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  The decision is not a ruling on
the merits of the case, but the Seventh Circuit's decision allows
pretrial discovery to proceed in this matter.  In addition, the
Northern Illinois District Court has stated that, by the end of
the calendar year, it intends to set a trial date.  The Company
says it plans to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the Seventh
Circuit's decision.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust
Cases are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against
them.  At this stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation, estimate the potential
amount or range of loss or determine whether it will have a
material effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or capital resources.


NEW ENGLAND: Lipton Law Firm Files Tainted Steroid Shot Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan personal injury lawyer Marc Lipton of Lipton Law has
filed a class action lawsuit in Detroit's U.S. District Court
against New England Compounding Center (NECC) on behalf of
patients who have contracted fungal meningitis from tainted
steroid shots.

Based on reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), there were 21 cases of non-contagious fungal
meningitis in Michigan, including two deaths, on October 8, 2012.
As of October 24, 2012, there are 68 reported cases, including
five deaths.  Unfortunately, the numbers of individuals with
fungal meningitis linked to the alleged defective product from
NECC is expected to increase as shots were administered as early
as May 21, 2012 to 76 facilities in 23 states.  In addition, the
CDC estimates that 14,000 Americans received possibly tainted
injections for pain and inflammation treatment.

            Facilities in Michigan Potentially Exposed

The CDC notes that facilities in Michigan that may have received
tainted steroid shots include: Michigan Neurosurgical Institute in
Grand Blanc, MI (810-606-7112); Michigan Pain Specialists in
Brighton, MI (734-995-7246); Neuromuscular & Rehabilitation in
Traverse City, MI (231-935-0860); and Southeast Michigan Surgical
Hospital in Warren, MI (586-427-1000).

Any patient who has received a steroid shot containing
preservative-free methylprednisolone acetate for pain at any of
these facilities in Michigan or other facilities in the U.S. are
being advised to see their doctor immediately, even if fungal
meningitis symptoms haven't developed.

             Symptoms of Fungal Meningitis & Treatment

The most common symptoms of fungal meningitis include fever;
increased pain; redness, warmth, or swelling in the joint that
received the injection or at the injection site; new or worsening
headache; sensitivity to light; stiff neck; new weakness or
numbness in any part of the body; slurred speech; and some
patients have experienced stroke.  Only one or two of these
symptoms may develop and symptoms may take 1 to 4 weeks following
the injection to develop.

The sooner fungal meningitis is diagnosed and treated, the better
a person's chances are of survival.  Fungal meningitis is treated
with antifungal medication.

            Identifying Drug Manufacturer Shortcomings

The class action lawsuit taken on by Mr. Lipton was filed with the
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) Civil
Docket for Case #: 2:12-cv-14559-SFC-PJK.  The suit not only
serves the purpose of upholding justice and helping harmed
patients obtain compensation for medical treatment and other
damages, but it also calls for tougher regulations within the
compounding pharmaceutical industry as a whole.  The case being
handled by Mr. Lipton was the third lawsuit to be filed against
NECC.  The first two were in Minnesota and many others have been
filed throughout the nation.

As a federal investigation of NECC is underway, as reported by The
Washington Post and other news outlets, the suspected cause of the
fungal meningitis outbreak has been attributed to allegedly
unclean conditions at the manufacturing facility in Framingham,
MA, and claims of distributing the steroid shots before test
results came back confirming their condition.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Derivative Traders LP and Robert Walpole, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OCZ Technology
Group, Inc., Ryan M. Petersen and Arthur F. Knapp, Jr., Case No.
3:12-cv-05381 (N.D. Calif., October 18, 2012) is a securities
class action brought on behalf of all purchasers of OCZ common
stock between July 10, 2012, and October 11, 2012, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
practices and financial results, the Plaintiffs allege.
Specifically, they said, the Defendants failed to disclose that
the Company's sales trends were not as robust as they had stated
and that rather, in order to address those negative trends in
OCZ's business, the Defendants were promising to pay customers
"incentives" in order to obtain sales, rendering their statements
concerning OCZ's financial results materially false and
misleading.

First Derivative and Mr. Walpole purchased OCZ common stock during
the Class Period.

OCZ, which is headquartered in San Jose, California, designs,
manufactures, and distributes Solid-State Drives and related
computer components.  OCZ specializes in high-speed memory and
characterizes itself as a leader in the enterprise and consumer
SSD markets, a technology that competes with traditional rotating
magnetic hard disk drives.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          431 Montgomery Avenue, Suite B
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000
          Facsimile: (610) 660-8080
          E-mail: Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com


ON-SITE MANAGER: Settles Class Action in N.Y. for $1.1MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a housing consumer
credit service agreed on Oct. 24 to pay more than $1 million to
settle a nationwide class action brought in New York by jilted
renters claiming it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by
reporting outdated court judgments to landlords.

On-Site Manager Inc. and lead plaintiff Dawn Massey submitted a
class action settlement agreement on Oct. 24 detailing a deal in
which On-Site Manager Inc. would establish a nearly $1.1 million
fund that would distribute $150 to each of the 7,261 class
members.


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Two Law Firms File Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
on Oc. 25 disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit
against Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. and two of its officers.
The lawsuit, captioned Porzio v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc.
et al., No. 12 CV 7948, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired OSG's common stock during the period April 28, 2008
through October 22, 2012.

The complaint asserts that OSG, through its officers and
directors, made false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's internal financial controls and its
accounting for certain loan provisions and its tax treatments
relating to its U.S. domicile and international operations.  These
statements are alleged to have been false and misleading when made
because: (i) the Company was suffering from grossly deficient
internal controls and therefore was susceptible to accounting
fraud; (ii) Defendants failed to disclose the true nature of the
accounting irregularities regarding their tax issues and loan
provisions; and (iii) the Company's financial statements were
inaccurate in numerous material respects.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than December
26, 2012, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for
the Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton or
Wolf Haldenstein to discuss your rights in the case.  You may also
retain counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at
this time to be a class member.  If you have any questions
regarding your rights related to this action or have information
relevant to the claims asserted in the complaint, please contact
attorney Steven Harte of Block & Leviton, LLP at (617) 398-5600 or
steven@blockesq.com or attorney Gregory Nespole of Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at (212) 545-4657 or Nespole@whafh.com


PATHEON INC: Customer Seeks Indemnification for Class Suit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patheon Inc. disclosed in its October 2, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a customer
who is defending three class action lawsuits related to a recall,
gave notice of its intent to seek indemnification from the Company
for all actual and potential third-party claims filed against them
in connection with the recall, as well as all costs and expenses
of the defense and settlement of such claims.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, a customer gave notice of
its intent to seek indemnification against the Company pursuant to
a manufacturing service agreement ("MSA") for all costs associated
with a recall and associated defective products.  The Company
accrued $1.7 million, net of expected insurance proceeds, to cover
recall costs and replace the returned products.  In November, the
customer gave further notice of its intent to seek indemnification
pursuant to the MSA for all actual and potential third-party
claims filed against them in connection with the recall, as well
as all costs and expenses of the defense and settlement of such
claims.  To date, three putative class actions related to the
recall have been commenced in the United States against the
customer.  At this time, the Company says it is not possible to
estimate the number of potential claimants or the amount of
potential damages in the actions.  To date, the Company has not
been named as a party in any action related to the product recall.


PHARMACIA CORP: Mass. Town Files Class Action Over PCBs
-------------------------------------------------------
Cision reports that a Massachusetts town has filed a class-action
chemical exposure lawsuit against three chemical companies over
the potential harm caused by high levels of chemicals known as
PCBs.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of Lexington and other school
districts of Massachusetts with school buildings that are affected
by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) made by Pharmacia Corp.,
Solutia Inc., and Monsanto Co., according to Boston.com.

The suit alleges that the makers of PCBs were aware of the risks
that the chemical posed to public health and the environment when
it was being used in the construction of schools spanning almost
three decades, starting from the 1950s.  The class action seeks to
represent Massachusetts schools that were built between the 1950s
and the 1970s.  Monsanto says that the suit lacks merit.

PCBs are known to cause cancer if they build up in the body over a
long period.  The Lexington Public Schools temporarily shut down
Estabrook Elementary School after tests showed high levels of PCBs
in the school, writes Boston.com.  After spending millions to try
and clean it up, the district is in the process of replacing the
school.

The manufacturing and use of PCBs was banned by Congress in 1976.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued certain guidelines
in 2009 that the schools are instructed to follow to limit
exposure to PCBs.


PREMIUM NUTRITIONAL: Recalls Select ZuPreem FruitBlend Bird Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2012, Premium Nutritional Products, Inc.
initiated a voluntary recall of ZuPreem FruitBlend(TM) With
Natural Fruit Flavors maintenance formula bird foods for
medium/large birds and for large birds with use by date codes of
11/30/13 or 11/13 and lot numbers 598405052 or 598405072.  The
recall is being conducted due to the product containing the
combination of exceedingly high calcium levels, low phosphorus,
and high vitamin D concentration resulting in a significant health
risk to the birds.  Consumption of food from these particular lots
may make birds sick and, in some cases, may be fatal.  Symptoms
include decreased activity level or appetite, increase in water
consumption or watery droppings.  Customers whose birds exhibit
these symptoms should immediately contact their veterinarian.

The two voluntarily recalled lots are 598405052 and 598405072.
The lot and expiration dates by sku, are listed below:

   SKU      Net Wt.       Description                 "Use By"
   ---      -------       ------------                --------
   83020    2 lbs.        ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Use By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/30/13
   UPC: 762177830209      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405052    for medium/large birds

   83030    3.5 lbs.      ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Use By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/30/13
   UPC: 762177830308      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405052    for medium/large birds

   83120    12 lbs.       ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Use By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/30/13
   UPC: 762177831206      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405052    for medium/large birds

   83170    17.5 lbs.     ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Best By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/13
   UPC: 762177831701      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405052    for medium/large birds

   83350    35 lbs.       ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Best By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/13
   UPC: 762177833507      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405052    for medium/large birds

   84020    2 lbs.        ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Use By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/30/13
   UPC: 762177840208      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405072    for large birds

   84030    3.5 lbs.      ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Use By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/30/13
   UPC: 762177840307      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405072    for large birds

   84120    12 lbs.       ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Use By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/30/13
   UPC: 762177841205      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405072    for large birds

   84170    17.5 lbs.     ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Best By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/13
   UPC: 762177841700      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405072    for large birds

   84350    35 lbs.       ZuPreem FruitBlend with     Best By
                          Natural Fruit Flavors       11/13
   UPC: 762177843506      Premium Daily Bird Food
   Lot Code: 598405072    for large birds

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326058.htm

The products were shipped by the company between the dates of
5/21/12 and 8/23/12 for distribution nationwide through pet
retailers, veterinary clinics, on line pet supply merchants and to
breeders, and zoological parks.

Consistent with this voluntary recall, the company is reminding
bird owners to check the expiration dates and lot numbers of any
product they may still have in their possession.  Consumers should
dispose of any remaining food and return the packaging to the
store where they purchased it for replacement or refund.

The issue was discovered as a result of product testing.

For additional information, interested parties should contact the
ZuPreem Customer Service line at 1-800-345-4767 (Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Central Time) or visit the ZuPreem
Web site at http://www.zupreem.com/fruitblendvoluntaryrecall/.


RITE AID: Awaits Final OK of Assistant Managers' Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is awaiting final approval of its global
settlement of class action lawsuits brought on behalf of assistant
store managers and co-managers, according to the Company's October
2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 1, 2012.

Since December 2008, the Company has been named in a series of
fifteen (15) currently pending putative collective and class
action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts around the
country, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers and co-managers working in the Company's stores at
various locations outside California, including Craig et al. v.
Rite Aid Corporation et al., pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") and
Ibea et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
lawsuits allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to
salaried assistant store managers and co-managers as purportedly
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and certain
state statutes.  The lawsuits also seek other relief, including
liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal claims for
overtime pay.  Notice was issued to over 7,500 current and former
assistant store managers and co-managers offering them the
opportunity to "opt in" to certain of the FLSA collective actions
and about 1,250 have elected to participate in these lawsuits.
The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the
lawsuits and the allegation that the cases should be certified as
class or collective actions.  However, in light of the cost and
uncertainty involved in these lawsuits, the Company negotiated an
agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel on the key terms of a global
settlement.  Subsequent to the end of the first quarter, the
Company entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs'
counsel to resolve the series of lawsuits.  The parties filed a
joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the
Court which was granted on June 18, 2012.  Any final resolution of
these matters will be subject to final court approval.  A final
approval hearing was scheduled on October 24, 2012.  During the
period ended June 2, 2012, the Company recorded legal reserves of
$20,900,000 related to the estimated settlement payments for these
matters.


RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's October 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 1, 2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed
meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating.
These lawsuits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages.  At this time, the Company is not able to either predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of
loss with respect to the lawsuits.  The Company's management
believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action
treatment.  The Company is vigorously defending all of these
claims.


RITE AID: Discovery in "Indergit" Class Suit Currently Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit styled
Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., according to the
Company's October 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
1, 2012.

The Company has been named in two (2) putative collective and
class action lawsuits, including Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation
et al. pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, filed in federal and state courts
in New York and Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of current and
former store managers working in the Company's stores at various
locations around the country outside of California.  The lawsuits
allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers
as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and under
certain state statutes.  The lawsuit also seeks other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal
claims for overtime pay.  The Court in Indergit, on April 2, 2010,
conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since
March 31, 2007.  The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit
action be sent to the purported members of the collective group
(approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and
approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.  Discovery is
proceeding.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit.  The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


SHELL OIL: Seeks Reversal of Consumer Class Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh
Circuit's dismissal of a $1 billion consumer class action saying
Shell Oil Co. printed the wrong credit card digits on receipts is
at odds with prior U.S. Supreme Court and circuit court rulings,
according to a recent high court petition.

Plaintiff Natalie van Straaten's Oct. 19 petition for writ of
certiorari urged the Supreme Court to flip the Seventh Circuit's
April ruling that Shell did not willfully violate the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.


T-MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Automated Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Todd M. Friedman on Oct. 25 disclosed that a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit has
been filed against T-Mobile following allegations by a man who
claims he received over 30 automated collections calls from
T-Mobile on his cell phone in just one month, even though he is
not a T-Mobile customer.  He explained to T-Mobile numerous times
that he was not the person they were asking for and they had the
wrong number, but the automated and pre-recorded calls continued.

In October 2012, The Law Office of Paul Mankin in conjunction with
The Law Office of Todd M. Friedman filed a class action lawsuit
against T-Mobile in Los Angeles, alleging multiple violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because T-Mobile did not
have a business relationship with this man and because the company
kept calling him after he demanded they stop.  Aboudi v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc. et al.  Case Number: 3:12-cv-02169-BTM-NLS

Both The Law Office of Paul Mankin and The Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman have several other class action suits in Los Angeles
courts against companies who have been in violation of the TCPA
with harassing collection calls and/or robocalls to cell phones.
Victims of these companies can get up to $1,500 per violation.

If you or a loved one has suffered similar damages or injuries
from T-Mobile (or other company), please contact us at (877) 449-
8898 and Mr. Mankin and Mr. Friedman will evaluate your claim at
no cost or obligation.


TICKETMASTER CANADA: Courts Approve Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sutts, Strosberg LLP Barristers & Solicitors on Oct. 26 disclosed
that the Courts in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec have
approved a settlement agreement made between Ticketmaster Canada
Holdings ULC and a number of its affiliates, and Plaintiffs who
brought proposed class action suits in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba
and Alberta relating to secondary market tickets purchased through
the http://www.ticketsnow.comWeb site.  Settlement benefits
include changes in ticket resale practices and an automatic refund
of $36, less certain deductions, to persons who purchased
qualifying tickets on http://www.ticketsnow.comduring the class
period.  Persons wishing to confirm their current addresses should
contact Garden City Group, Inc., the court-appointed Settlement
Administrator, at (877) 446-4768 or info@ticketsettlement.com

For further information about the settlement and refund payment
process, including payment timelines, visit
http://www.ticketsettlement.com

The Defendants have not admitted any liability or wrongdoing in
relation to the claims.  The settlement does not cover primary
market tickets sold over the Ticketmaster Web site.

For further information:

For information requests by the media, please contact one of the
plaintiffs' lawyers:

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          Telephone: (519) 561-6272
          E-mail: jay@strosbergco.com

          Luciana Brasil, Esq.
          Branch MacMaster LLP
          Barristers & Solicitors
          Telephone: (604) 654-2960
          E-mail: lbrasil@branmac.com

          Normand Painchaud, Esq.
          Sylvestre Fafard Painchaud
          Telephone: (514) 937-2881 #228
          E-mail: n.painchaud@sfpavocats.ca


UNIQUE BABY: Recalls 975 ValcoBaby Booster Seats Due to Fall Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Unique Baby Products USA LLC, doing business as ValcoBaby, of
Brooklyn, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 975
ValcoBaby "Joey" booster toddler seats for strollers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The spring button mechanism securing the booster toddler seat to
the baby stroller can disengage, allowing for the carried toddler
to fall.

The firm has received two reports of a child falling from the
booster toddler seat after it disengaged from the stroller.  No
injuries were reported.

The product is a booster toddler seat, both single and twin,
designed to attach to Valco "Tri-Mode" and "Zee" strollers.  Only
booster seats with batch numbers 3111, 7819, 7822 and 7831 and
model number TOD1058, TOD9109 and ZEE0649 are included in the
recall.  The batch and model numbers are printed on a label
attached to the product frame.  The seats have a black color
fabric seat on white metal base frame.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13012.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
various juvenile product stores, websites and the firm's Web site
http://www.valcobaby.com/nationwide from June 2011 through June
2012 for between $80 and $100.

Consumers should stop using these toddler booster seats
immediately and contact ValcoBaby to arrange for a free
replacement attachment mechanism.  For additional information,
contact ValcoBaby at (800) 610-7850 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at:

http://www.valcobaby.com/warranty-registration/recall-joey.html

or e-mail us at recall@valcobaby.com


WALTER ENERGY: Ontario Court Denies Request for Class Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. disclosed in its September 17, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on
September 14, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released
its decision denying in its entirety the request of a plaintiff
for leave to proceed with a proposed class action.

                        Company Statement

Walter Energy Inc. announced that on Sept. 14, 2012, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Court") released its
decision denying in its entirety the request of the Plaintiff,
Wayne Gould, for leave to proceed with a proposed class action
making misrepresentation claims against the Company and certain of
its former directors (the "Defendant Directors") on the basis that
the claims did not have a reasonable possibility of success.

The Ontario Court also denied in their entirety the Plaintiff's
requests to certify, as a class proceeding, other claims alleging
oppression made against the Company, the Defendant Directors,
Audley Capital Management, Audley Advisors LLP and certain Audley
Funds (the "Audley Defendants").  The Ontario Court also denied in
their entirety the Plaintiff's requests to certify additional
claims of conspiracy made against the Company and the Audley
Defendants.

The Company says it intends to request that the Ontario Court
order reimbursement of costs incurred in responding to the
Plaintiff's claims.  The Plaintiff has 30 days within which to
serve an appeal from the September 14, 2012 decision.

                       About Walter Energy

Walter Energy is the world's leading, publicly traded "pure-play"
metallurgical coal producer for global industry with strategic
access to high-growth steel markets in Asia, South America and
Europe.  The Company also produces thermal coal, anthracite,
metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas.  Walter Energy
employs approximately 4,400 employees and contractors with
operations in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom.  For
more information about Walter Energy, please visit
http://www.walterenergy.com/


WELLS CORE: Securities Class Litigation Dismissed in September
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned In re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation was dismissed in
September, according to Wells Core Office Income REIT, Inc.'s
October 2, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On September 26, 2012, the United States District Court for the
District of Georgia granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the previously disclosed purported class action and
derivative complaint, styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, against Piedmont Office Realty
Trust, Inc. (formerly Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.);
the directors of Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.; certain
affiliated entities of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc.; and certain
individuals (including Leo F. Wells, III, the Company's Chairman,
and Douglas P. Williams, the Company's Chief Financial Officer)
who formerly served as officers and directors of Piedmont Office
Realty Trust, Inc. prior to its internalization of its advisor.
As a result, the case has been dismissed.  Plaintiffs have the
right to appeal.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Overtime Class Actions
-----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that separate class actions in
Superior Court accuse Wells Fargo Bank and Roadrunner
Communications of failing to pay wages.


WMS SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Waibel, writing for Gazette.net, reports that a class
action lawsuit claims that some employees of a Bethesda staffing
agency were victims of "intentional schemes to deny them wages."

The complaint, filed Oct. 22 in U.S. District Court, accuses WMS
Solutions, which also has offices in Baltimore, of violating state
and federal regulations by making employees pay for job-related
equipment and training out of pocket and not paying them for time
spent in required training courses.

WMS supplies temporary employees to contractors to work in
asbestos, mold and lead removal work, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages and the costs of training
programs, physicals and personal protection equipment that the
company is required by law to provide to employees at no cost, the
complaint says.

Marvin Blandon, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit and a
WMS employee, said that without proper training, he could get sick
or bring asbestos home on his clothes to his wife and baby.

"I've been forced to pay hundreds of dollars just to make sure I
don't get sick from my work," Mr. Blandon said through a
translator.  "Specialty training, equipment and trips to the
doctor are also required so that I can do my job safely, and my
employer should pay for them, not me.

"I decided to file this lawsuit because it's time that WMS
followed the law and provided safe working conditions for the
people it hires."

The complaint says WMS deducted a total of $110 from Mr. Blandon's
wages for the Washington, D.C., asbestos license fee in 2011, and
may have made other unauthorized deductions from his wages over
the course of his employment.  Mr. Blandon has also paid about
$300 for annual asbestos refresher course fees, the complaint
says, as well as about $32 for a respirator he is required to wear
when performing asbestos abatement work.

So far, more than 30 WMS workers have filed to join the suit, but
hundreds could be affected, said Sally Dworak-Fisher, an attorney
with the Public Justice Center, which filed the lawsuit.

WMS did not return requests for comment as of Oct. 26.


                           *********

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., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 $575 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 Chapman
at 240/629-3300.




                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *