/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121114.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, November 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 226


ALTERNATE ENERGY: Judge Finalizes Class Action Settlement
AMERICAN CAREER: Faces Overtime Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Nov. 28 Hearing in Improper Trading Suit Deal Set
BEEBE MEDICAL: Judge Set to Approve Bradley Abuse Settlement
BLACK EARTH: Recalls 99 Pounds of Beef Tongue Products

CHINA GREEN: Awaits Court Order on Plea to Junk Securities Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Post & Forfeit Fees
DR PEPPER: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Soft Drinks
EXPEDIA INC: Hearing in "Pine Bluff" Suit Set for November 19
EXPEDIA INC: 6th Cir. Affirms "Columbus-Findlay" Suit Dismissal

EXPEDIA INC: Parties Seek Consolidation of Hotel Booking Suits
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls 9 oz. Spinach Due to Possible Health Risk
FRITO-LAY: Recalls Grandma's Peanut Butter Sandwich Creme Cookies
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Urge Judge to Advance Privacy Claims
HALLIBURTON CO: Appeal From "John Fund" Suit Class Cert. Pending

HALLIBURTON CO: Still Defends Class Suit Over Duncan Facility
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Awaits Hearing on Tip Law Violations Suit
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in Texas
HYUNDAI: Sued for Misrepresenting Fuel Economy Ratings
INTUIT INC: Fed. Court Dismisses "Smith" Lawsuit in Calif.

LOUISIANA CITIZENS: In the Red After Hurricane Isaac Settlements
NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $115 Mil.
NESTLE USA: Recalls 10.9, 21.8 & 40.7 oz NESQUIK Chocolate Powder
NEW FRONTIER: Faces Class Action Over LFP's Proposed Takeover
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Ex-Police Officer Files Overtime Class Action

OCLARO INC: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Pending Court OK
OCLARO INC: Still Defends Securities Class Action in Calif.
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Alfred G. Yates P.C. Files Class Action
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Gun Owners File Privacy Class Action
PRESSTEK INC: Enters MOU to Resolve 3 MAI Merger-Related Suits

SAKURA JAPANESE: Tipped Employees File Wage Class Action
SP AUSNET: Class Action Lawyer Says Claims May Reach Millions
SPENCE & CO: Recalls 1,563 Packs of N.Y. Style Nova Lox Salmon
TIERONE CORP: Judge Approves Shareholders' Class Action Settlement
VISA INC: $7.25-Bil. Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK

WET SEAL: Court of Appeal Upholds Class Certification Denial
WHIRLPOOL: Front-Loading Washing Machine Litigation May Proceed


ALTERNATE ENERGY: Judge Finalizes Class Action Settlement
Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. on Nov. 9 disclosed that Hon.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill finalized settlement proceedings regarding a
class lawsuit, which was filed by the Rosen Law Firm in January
2011.  The suit essentially duplicated a complaint filed by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was filed in
December 2010.

The settlement was finalized October 31, 2012, following an
agreement between AEHI and stockholders, which was fulfilled by
AEHI in June 2012 through a payment of $450,000.  The amount was
agreed upon during a settlement conference in April 2012.

As part of the settlement, all defendants, including AEHI, Don
Gillispie, and Jennifer Ransom, admit no wrongdoing and see this
as a means to reduce further litigation costs to the company.
The lawsuit also provides a method for stockholders to receive
compensation for any potential losses they may have incurred,
following the 2010 complaint from the SEC.

Any questions regarding settlement or payment should be referred
to the Rosen Law Firm at 212-686-1060.

AEHI has been working toward the building of a proposed nuclear
power plant in Payette County, Idaho.  The company received rezone
approval from the Payette County Planning and Zoning Commission on
December 9, 2010, and unanimous local rezoning approval from
Payette County Commissioners on June 20, 2011.

AMERICAN CAREER: Faces Overtime Class Action
Courthouse News Service reports that American Career College
stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior

BANK OF AMERICA: Nov. 28 Hearing in Improper Trading Suit Deal Set
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a long-running
class-action lawsuit accusing trading firms on the New York Stock
Exchange of improperly executing trades for their dealer accounts
ahead of their clients has reached an $18.5 million settlement,
court records show.

The accord is between investors and firms that include Bank of
America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.  It was disclosed in
court papers submitted to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan,
date-stamped Oct. 26.

The plaintiffs accuse the trading firms of self-dealing and
engaging in improper proprietary trading in their status as
specialist firms for the New York Stock Exchange, which funneled
trades through them.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet has scheduled a Nov. 28 hearing
to consider approving the settlement.

In addition to Bank of America and Goldman, the defendants include
LaBranche & Co Inc., at one time the largest specialists and now
owned by Cowen Group Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co, Inc., now owned by
JPMorgan Chase & Co.; and Susquehanna International Group.

The litigation, which began in 2003, also named as a defendant the
NYSE, which was accused of neglecting or abandoning its regulatory
duties to oversee the firms.  The NYSE reached a separate
settlement in 2010.

Of the $18.5 million in the proposed settlement, $750,000 has
already been paid by defendant Van der Moolen Holdings, N.V., a
Dutch equity trading firm that filed for bankruptcy in 2009,
according to court papers.

The settlement provides that investors may seek additional
compensation in Van der Moolen's Netherlands bankruptcy

In a motion filed on Nov. 8, the other defendants said they
continue to deny wrongdoing or liability as part of the

Spokespeople for the defendants either declined comment or did not
respond to requests for comment.

David Mitchell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, did not respond to a call and e-mail seeking

The papers were not filed electronically with the court as of Nov.
9.  They were obtained at the court by Reuters after other records
filed Thursday made reference to the settlement.

The alleged self-dealing by the specialist firms was at the center
of an earlier $240 million settlement, in 2004, between the five
biggest firms and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Later in 2004, Judge Sweet declined to dismiss the class action,
though he said investors would not be allowed to recover funds
relating to trades that were covered in the regulatory

The lead plaintiff, California Public Employees' Retirement
System, later moved to have the case certified as a class action.
Judge Sweet granted that request in 2009.

The NYSE reached a settlement in the class action in 2010 after
nearly all the claims against it were dismissed.  As part of the
deal, it agreed to cooperate with CalPERS as it continued to
pursue the lawsuit.

The case is In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 03-cv-08264.

BEEBE MEDICAL: Judge Set to Approve Bradley Abuse Settlement
Ryan Mavity, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that Tuesday,
Nov. 13, was expected to be a landmark day in the class-action
civil case against pedophile pediatrican Earl Bradley.

Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights III is expected to approve a
settlement in the case, designed to compensate Mr. Bradley's many
victims for the crimes they suffered while at the same time
allowing Beebe Medical Center to avoid bankruptcy.

John Culhane, director of Widener University's Health Law
Institute, said the Bradley case is highly unusual in that it is a
sexual-abuse case that will be settled through class action.  Mr.
Culhane also said the mechanism by which victims will be
compensated and the establishment of a victims' fund are

He said sexual-abuse cases usually do not lend themselves to
class-action suits because the standard of proof must be applied
to the entire class, not a single individual. Not all victims are
abused in the same way, so it is difficult for attorneys to win
class-action sexual-abuse cases, Mr. Culhane said.

The sheer size of the Bradley settlement -- which has more than
900 members in the class -- can be compared with sexual abuse
cases involving the Catholic Church.

But Mr. Culhane said most of the Catholic Church cases were not
class-actions.  Those cases also usually involved numerous
priests, while the Bradley case concerns the actions of a single

Irwin Zalkin, a California attorney who specializes in sexual-
abuse cases, said, "It's one of the largest I've seen for
essentially coming out of one case. It's really substantial."

Mr. Zalkin would know; he's been the lead lawyer on the largest
known sexual-abuse settlement in U.S. history -- $660 million from
the Catholic Church in Los Angeles.  He was also lead attorney on
the largest known per-victim settlement in U.S. history, a $200
million settlement for 144 victims of priests in the diocese of
San Diego.

Mr. Zalkin said settlements are less risky than going to trial.

"A settlement is a sure thing," he said.  "For people and for
victims, they are going to get compensated.  It eliminates the
elements of risk that a trial may have.

"For the institutions, it's essentially the same thing.  They know
what their obligation is.  It's a fixed amount and there is not
the variable risk in what a jury may award.  A good settlement is
one where neither side is overjoyed by what the outcome is," he

Mr. Zalkin said the large number of victims in the Bradley case is
another reason a settlement is preferable, because a single case
could theoretically deplete the available assets, leaving nothing
for the rest of the victims.

Mr. Culhane said a settlement was the right way to go as a way to
end the litigation as soon as possible while sparing the victims
from a trial.

Wilmington attorney Thomas Neuberger agreed.  "You never want to
relive the nightmare.  You're just making them go through the
trauma again," he said.

In addition to sparing victims from reliving the trauma, he said,
settlement also allows victims to avoid questioning by lawyers for
the opposition.

"These kids do not need to go through that kind of hell.  It's
always best if you can get a fair settlement and not have a child-
abuse survivor take the stand," Mr. Neuberger said.

Marc Felizzi, director of the Department of Social Work
Baccalaureate Program at Delaware State University and an expert
on child sexual abuse, said, "Every time a victim goes into a
courtroom they are running the danger of being retraumatized."  A
settlement means these kids don't have to testify or go to court,
he said.

"Much like when they knocked down his [Bradley's office] building,
it's a step toward healing for them," Mr. Felizzi said.

If Judge Slights approves the settlement as expected, it will end
further claims against Beebe and related claims against the
Medical Society of Delaware and doctors Carol Tavani, Lowell
Scott, James Marvel and Nicholas Berg, accused of having knowledge
Bradley was abusing patients and failing to report it.

What next for victims?

While an approval of the settlement would mean an official end to
the civil proceeding, the aftermath is still in its early stages
for the victims.

An Oct. 10 joint statement by the attorneys involved said the
money pool is made up of insurance proceeds from Beebe Medical
Center and Delaware Medical Society, cash from Beebe and a fund
that will pay for future medical treatment for victims.  Although
the precise nature of future treatment has not yet been defined,
Beebe is expected to provide $1 million in future medical services
for victims.

Mr. Felizzi said, "I would hope that there is something built in
there for their recovery.  This is stuff that could last a
lifetime for a kid if it's not addressed properly, and in Sussex
County you don't have great resources per se; you have very few
counseling resources."

He said the effects of abuse on children could manifest themselves
in many different ways, such as antisocial behavior, short
attention spans, acting out sexually, clingy or distant behavior,
anger and difficulty interacting with others.

Treatment of these issues can include play therapy for younger
children, and later talk therapy as they get older, Mr. Felizzi
said.  One of the greatest difficulties in treating victims, he
said, is helping them take the blame off themselves and put it on
the perpetrator.

"With a child it's much more profound.  The volume is turned way
up, if you will -- it's right in front of you," he said.

What will the attorneys get?

Mr. Neuberger said in this case, Judge Slights has the authority
to set legal fees, which are generally deducted from the victims'
compensation. Typically, attorney fees in Delaware are 33 to 39
percent for cases involving adults, he said.

Mr. Zalkin said most jurisdictions have restrictions on the
percentage attorneys can take in cases involving minors, typically
25 percent or one-third.  Mr. Zalkin said attorneys could argue
for more in court if they can show good cause, and attorneys can
also attempt to recoup costs for expenses not considered part of
the fee, such as evaluations by outside forensic psychologists.

The awarded amounts will vary according to factors such as the
severity of the abuse, Mr. Neuberger said.  In the Bradley case,
the very young age of some victims makes the effect of abuse more
difficult to determine or measure.  Victims in the clergy abuse
cases were older, so the effects of abuse -- drug addiction and
alcohol abuse, among other issues -- were clearer, he said.

Mr. Neuberger, who was the lead attorney in the civil sex-abuse
case against the Wilmington Catholic Diocese, said the Bradley
settlement follows the template laid out in that case.

He said attorney Thomas Rutter was named arbiter of the money,
which will be placed in a trust for the victims under the
supervision of the Court of Chancery.

Mr. Rutter, a former judge in Philadelphia's Court of Common
Pleas, served a similar role in the case of the Wilmington
Diocese, which was forced into bankruptcy after paying out $146
million to 77 victims.  Mr. Neuberger praised Mr. Rutter's
involvement in the case.

"He's a proven commodity," Mr. Neuberger said.  "When in doubt, I
believe Judge Rutter will make an award versus not make an award.
I feel very confident that Judge Rutter will feel there is enough
evidence that the child was abused, even though they don't have a
video.  To me, I'm sure he'll feel every one of those children was
abused because they were a patient.  He's very compassionate.
They found the right person for the job."

To help calculate the effects of the abuse, Judge Rutter will be
assisted by pediatrician and child forensic psychiatrist Dr. Anne
Steinberg, a former faculty member at University of Pennsylvania
Medical School and an expert in treating child sex-abuse cases.

Mr. Neuberger said in the Wilmington cases, the victims were
looking back at their own lives; in the Bradley case, the
psychiatrist will help Judge Rutter have a reasonable medical
probability of what to expect.

"All this methodology was pretty tried and true.  The process
leans in favor of an award, leans in favor of adequate
compensation," Mr. Neuberger said.

Another factor in how the money is distributed is the involvement
of the Court of Chancery, which is the ultimate administrator of
the trust set up for the victims.

"The court has to approve any kind of settlement that involves a
minor or an injury to the minor.  The state considers the child a
ward," Mr. Zalkin said.

"Since Chancery Court is involved, it is possible there will be
some oversight into the legal fees.  Usually, the lawyers modify
their one-third fee to a lesser fee," Mr. Neuberger said.

He said in the Wilmington Diocese case, the victims were all
adults and could spend the settlement money however they wanted.
In this case, because the victims are children, the money will be
protected until the victims are 18 years old.

Mr. Neuberger said Judge Slights could also put restrictions on
the money to prevent reckless spending after the victim turns 18.
He said the parents would likely end up as the trustees of the
money, able to make decisions on how it is invested.

"Chancery's probably going to have to come up with a whole set of
rules.  They don't want 800 parents coming to them every three
days saying 'Can I pay a doctor bill for my child?' The court is
going to be overseeing what happens," Mr. Neuberger said.

How the settlement works

Attorneys and hospital officials did not wish to comment on the
case, which is under protective order until after Judge Slights
makes his ruling.

The class members had until Nov. 13 to join the settlement.
According to an ad from the plaintiffs' attorneys, if former
Bradley patients do not enter the class before the settlement is
approved, they may have no rights to recovery for injuries they
may have suffered at Mr. Bradley's hands.

Attorney Chase Brockstedt, who represents more than 80 members of
the class, said notice has been mailed to the class members, but
he could not comment beyond that.

The only official comment in the case has been the Oct. 10 joint
statement laying out how the settlement was reached. Victims will
be separated into five categories:

Category 1 - Clear and convincing evidence of abuse including

Category 2 - Significant evidence of abuse

Category 3 - Reasonable degree of probability that the child was

Category 4 - Child may or may not have been abused

Category 5 - Child was not likely abused

Mr. Culhane said the videos Mr. Bradley took of his assaults will
play a major role in how compensation is distributed, because the
videos provide clear evidence of what happened.

Mr. Zalkin said allocation of compensation can be based on a wide
variety of factors, including the severity and length of the
abuse, the age of the victim and the psychological impact of the
abuse on the victim.

"In general, anyone allocating these funds will look at these
factors and make an allocation within the limits of the global
settlement. They'll start with the average and then increase or
decrease from the average in each case," he said.

Mr. Neuberger said much of the money would go toward the middle of
the pool -- victims with either significant evidence of abuse or a
reasonable probability they were abused. Referring to the
Wilmington case, he said, "It was like a bell curve.  You had some
that were at the far right.  But the majority of the awards all
were in the middle.  There are going to be some outliers on the
high end."

These outliers, Mr. Neuberger said, would likely be victims whose
abuse was videotaped and where the victim is easily identifiable.
He said other factors would play in, such as the severity and
frequency of abuse.

The injury categories are set up in such a way as to avoid the top
tier receiving all the money.  Mr. Neuberger said it's likely
various factors will be assigned a point value, with the highest
value corresponding to the most severe and frequent abuse.  The
point value is then fractioned out against the size of the pool
and applied as a percentage to the amount of money available in
the settlement.

The Bradley settlement was 17 months in the making, as 16 class
attorneys, attorneys for Beebe, the medical society, the doctors
and the insurance companies finally reached an agreement.  Mr.
Zalkin said it is not unusual for a settlement to take a long time
as insurers and insured battle over what is covered.

"There are a lot of moving parts. It's a substantial amount of
money.  You probably have issues going back and forth between the
carrier, the insurer and the hospital. Then you have the claims of
the victims and the numbers of victims, sorting through their
exposure for those," he said.

Mr. Bradley, who owned BayBees Pediatrics in Lewes, was convicted
in August 2011 of 24 counts of rape, assault and sexual
exploitation of 86 children, although he was originally indicted
for abusing more than 100 patients.  In September, the Delaware
Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

He is currently serving 14 life sentences and 164 years in prison
at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Institute in Smyrna.

BLACK EARTH: Recalls 99 Pounds of Beef Tongue Products
Black Earth Meat Market Inc., a Black Earth, Wisconsin
establishment, is recalling approximately 99 pounds of beef tongue
products because they may not have had the tonsils completely
removed, which is not compliant with regulations that require the
removal of tonsils from cattle of all ages, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall are:

   * Various size cases of Black Earth Meats Natural Beef Tongues
     and Black Earth Meats Local Beef Tongues produced on
     October 8, 11, 17, and 18, 2012.

The products bear Est. 34379 inside the USDA mark of inspection
and were distributed to a restaurant in Wisconsin and a
distributor in Illinois.  A picture of the recalled products'
label is available at:


The problem was discovered during a routine Food Safety Assessment
at the establishment.  Tonsils are considered a specified risk
material (SRM) and must be removed from cattle of all ages in
accordance with FSIS regulations.  SRMs are tissues that are known
to contain the infective agent in cattle infected with Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as materials that are
closely associated with these potentially infective tissues.
Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize
potential human exposure to the BSE agent.  There is no indication
that any of the cattle slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Bartlett Durand, Managing Member, at (608)767-3940.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.

CHINA GREEN: Awaits Court Order on Plea to Junk Securities Suit
China Green Agriculture, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action complaint in Nevada,
according to the Company's September 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2012.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of purchasers of its common stock between November 12, 2009 and
September 1, 2010.  On April 27, 2011, the court appointed the
lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.  On June 13, 2011,
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which adds several
additional defendants and expands the class period to include
purchasers who purchased the Company's common stock between May
12, 2009 and January 4, 2011.  The amended complaint alleges that
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making material
misstatements and omissions in its financial statements,
securities offering documents, and related disclosures during the
class period.  The plaintiffs claim that such allegedly misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's common stock and
seek monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 7,
2011.  Defendants' motions are fully briefed and the Nevada
Federal Court had scheduled oral argument for October 2, 2012.

China Green Agriculture, Inc. is engaged in the research,
development, production and sale of various types of fertilizers
and agricultural products in the People's Republic of China though
its wholly-owned Chinese subsidiaries, Jinong, Jintai, Yuxing,
Gufeng.  Its primary business is fertilizer products, specifically
humic acid-based compound fertilizer produced through Jinong and
compound fertilizer, blended fertilizer, organic compound
fertilizer, slow-release fertilizers, highly-concentrated water-
soluble fertilizers and mixed organic-inorganic compound
fertilizer produced through Gufeng.  In addition, through Jintai
and Yuxing, the Company develops and produces agricultural
products, such as top-grade fruits, vegetables, flowers and
colored seedlings.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Post & Forfeit Fees
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, the District of Columbia and D.C. Superior Court are facing
a class action over what happens to the fees paid by arrested
persons during a process known as "post and forfeit."

Under the sometimes-controversial process, individuals arrested
for certain minor offenses, such as disorderly conduct, can post
collateral and then forfeit it in exchange for essentially having
the case dropped without an admission of guilt.  According to a
complaint filed November 6 in U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, the plaintiffs are claiming that the court isn't
issuing refunds when arrested individuals are overcharged and pay
more collateral than required.

The amounts of money at issue are relatively small.  The lead
plaintiff, Aster Tachebele, for instance, is claiming that she
paid $100 to resolve a charge of selling cigarettes to a minor,
but the correct fee amount is $75.  The proposed class would
include individuals arrested and allegedly overcharged in a
similar fashion from November 2009 through the present.

Ms. Tachebele's lawyer claims that a random series of dockets
pulled between April 1, 2010 and April 15, 2010, showed that more
than 30 people who went through the "post and forfeit" process
were overcharged by amounts as low as $10 to as high as $50.

In the complaint, Ms. Tachebele notes that her case docket
includes an entry for an overcharge.  In the complaint, she claims
that the court clerk's office checks for overcharges and makes
similar notations in other case dockets, but "has no policy of
making refunds."

Ms. Tachebele's lawyer, local solo practitioner William Claiborne
III, could not immediately be reached for comment.  The court,
through spokeswoman Leah Gurowitz, declined to comment, citing the
pending case.  The city's Office of the Attorney General, through
spokesman Ted Gest, declined to comment, except that they are
reviewing the case.

The "post and forfeit" process has come under scrutiny before,
although usually for how it's administered by the Metropolitan
Police Department.  In one still-pending lawsuit against the
police department, the plaintiff accused police officers of using
the process to quickly resolve and cover-up what she alleged was
an unlawful arrest for disorderly conduct.  The department is in
the process of appealing a judgment in the plaintiff's favor
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Ms. Tachebele's case is before U.S. District Judge Richard Leon.
No court dates have been scheduled.

DR PEPPER: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Soft Drinks
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Dr Pepper Snapple Group pushes 7UP Cherry Antioxidant and other
so-called "antioxidant" soft drinks with false claims about their
nutritional value.

EXPEDIA INC: Hearing in "Pine Bluff" Suit Set for November 19
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
Pine Bluff, Arkansas Litigation is scheduled for November 19,
2012, according to Expedia, Inc.'s October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
Hotels.com, and Hotwire, captioned Pine Bluff Advertising and
Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others
similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the
Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas).  The complaint alleges that
defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax
occupancy ordinances.  The court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification.
On January 12, 2012, the court entered an order staying the case
for thirty days while it considers again whether the plaintiff
should be required to exhaust administrative remedies.

A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
scheduled for November 19, 2012.

EXPEDIA INC: 6th Cir. Affirms "Columbus-Findlay" Suit Dismissal
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in September a
lower court decision dismissing all claims against online travel
companies in the Columbus-Findlay, Ohio Litigation, according to
Expedia, Inc.'s October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On October 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio, filed a purported
statewide class action in state court against a number of Internet
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.  The
lawsuit is styled City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No.
2005-CV-673 (Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Ohio).  On
August 8, 2006, the city of Columbus, Ohio, and the city of
Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal
court against a number of Internet travel companies, including
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington
-- City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-CV-
00677 (United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio).
The complaints allege that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal ordinance.
The complaints include claims for violation of hotel occupancy tax
ordinances, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion,
imposition of a constructive trust and declaratory relief.  The
Findlay lawsuit was removed to federal court and consolidated with
the case brought by Columbus and Dayton.  On July 26, 2006, the
court held that defendants were not subject to the payment of
taxes under the hotel occupancy tax ordinances and granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The cities of
Toledo, Northwood, Rossford, Maumee, the Franklin County
Convention Facilities Authority and the Perrysburg Township and
Springfield Township have been added as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Class certification was never granted.  On November 18, 2010, the
court ruled on the remaining claim and held that defendants have
not collected taxes that have not been remitted and entered
judgment in favor of the online travel companies.  Plaintiffs have

On September 10, 2012, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's decision dismissing all claims
against the online travel companies and upheld the lower court's
decision that the online travel companies have no obligation to
collect and remit hotel occupancy taxes.

EXPEDIA INC: Parties Seek Consolidation of Hotel Booking Suits
Expedia, Inc. disclosed in its October 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012, that parties have moved before the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for consolidation of
the numerous lawsuits relating to hotel booking practices.

On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading
("OFT") issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia,
Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG")
have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law
in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations.
The Statement of Objections alleges that Expedia and Booking.com
entered into separate agreements with IHG that restricted each
online travel company's ability to discount the price of IHG hotel
rooms.  The OFT limited its investigation to a small number of
companies, but has stated that the investigation is likely to have
wider implications for the industry within the United Kingdom.

The Statement of Objections does not constitute a finding of
infringement and all parties have the opportunity to respond. If
the OFT maintains its objections after the companies' responses,
the OFT can issue a final decision.  In such a case a final
decision would be issued at the earliest in 2013.  An appeal of an
adverse OFT decision is to the English courts but may involve a
reference on matters of European Union law to the European Court
of Justice.  The Company says it is unable at this time to predict
the outcome of the OFT proceeding and any appeal.  In addition, a
number of competition authorities in other European countries have
initiated investigations in relation to certain contractual
arrangements between hotels and online travel companies, including
Expedia.  These investigations differ in relation to the parties
involved and the precise nature of the concerns.

Since August 20, 2012, twenty-one putative class action lawsuits,
which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have been
initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging
claims against the online travel companies, including Expedia, and
several major hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance
for online hotel room reservations, including but not limited to
violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer
protection statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust
enrichment.  The cases are currently pending in multiple federal
and state courts.  The parties have moved before the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation for consolidation of the cases.

FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls 9 oz. Spinach Due to Possible Health Risk
Fresh Express Incorporated is conducting a voluntary,
precautionary recall of a limited quantity of Fresh Express
Spinach with a Use-by Date of November 7 and Product Code of
S299B25 due to a possible health risk from Salmonella.

No illnesses or consumer complaints have been reported to Fresh
Express at this time in association with this recall.  No other
Fresh Express products are subject to this recall.

The recall notification is being issued out of an abundance of
caution due to an isolated instance in which a random sample
yielded a positive result for Salmonella under U.S. Department of
Agriculture's random sample testing program.  Fresh Express is
coordinating closely with regulatory officials.

Fresh Express customer service representatives are already
contacting relevant retailers to confirm the recalled product has
been removed from store shelves and inventories and that none is
available for consumer purchase.  Customers with questions are
instructed to contact their usual Fresh Express customer service
representative.  The recalled salads were distributed primarily in
the Western region of the U.S.

Consumers who may have purchased the recalled salad are asked not
to eat it, but to throw it out instead.  Fresh Express is offering
a full refund.  Consumers with questions or who would like to
secure a refund may call the Fresh Express Consumer Response
Center at (800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

Specific recall information follows:

   * Product Being Recalled: Fresh Express Spinach in 9 oz.

   * Product Code: S299B25 (located in upper right corner on
     front of package)

   * Use-by Date: November 7 (also located in upper right hand
     corner of package)

   * Distribution: Primarily in the Western region of the U.S.

Salmonella is an organism that may cause fever, nausea, vomiting,
abdominal pain and possibly bloody diarrhea in healthy
individuals.  It can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.  Consumers with these symptoms should
consult their health care provider.

        Fresh Express Precautionary Salad Recall-11/7/12
   (No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall)

                  Product           Production   Best If Used
  Brand           Name      Size    Code         By Date
  -----           -------   ----    ----------   ------------
  Fresh Express   Spinach   9 OZ.    S299B25         NOV7

  UPC: 0 71279-13204 4
                        NE, NV, NM, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY

FRITO-LAY: Recalls Grandma's Peanut Butter Sandwich Creme Cookies
Frito-Lay announced the nationwide voluntary recall of GRANDMA'S
Peanut Butter Sandwich Creme cookies and GRANDMA'S Peanut Butter
Mini Sandwich Creme cookies because they contain undeclared milk
and egg.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
or egg run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume GRANDMA'S Peanut Butter Sandwich Creme
and GRANDMA'S Peanut Butter Mini Sandwich Creme products.  No
other GRANDMA'S cookies products or flavors are impacted.

The products are sold in retail stores nationwide.  The affected
packages are 3.025 oz. packages of GRANDMA'S Peanut Butter
Sandwich Creme cookies that have a sell-by date of March 12, 2013
or earlier and UPC code of 28400-00153; and 1.71 oz. GRANDMA'S
Peanut Butter Mini Sandwich Creme cookies that have a sell-by date
of May 21, 2013, or earlier and UPC code of 28400-00901.  The
sell-by date is located on the front of the package.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:


No complaint or illness has been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that GRANDMA'S
Peanut Butter Sandwich Creme cookies and GRANDMA'S Peanut Butter
Mini Sandwich Creme cookies did not list the presence of possible
allergens that are included in an artificial butter flavor

Consumers with any product noted above can return the product to
retailer for a full refund, or contact Frito-Lay Consumer
Relations at 1- 877-650-3479.

GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Urge Judge to Advance Privacy Claims
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a class urged
a federal judge to let them advance claims that Google intercepts
e-mails and eavesdrops on online users in violation of California
privacy laws.

Lead plaintiffs Brad Scott and Todd Harrington sued Google in June
for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

They claim that Gmail scans e-mails for words and content, and
intentionally intercepts messages between non-Gmail subscribers
and subscribers.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint in Marin County Superior
Court, but Google removed the case to the federal court in San
Jose.  The search giant then moved to dismiss in October, saying
that the state law makes no mention of "electronic communication,"
"email," "Internet" and "computer."

In their opposition to that motion, the class says no court has
addressed the alleged "eavesdropping" and "wiretapping," and new
technology must be subject to the same rules as telephone and
telegraph communication.

"Google is opening and reading people's email without their
consent and before delivery to the intended recipient," according
to brief authored by attorney Clayeo Arnold.  "In justifying its
admitted conduct, Google argues California's statute does not
prohibit such conduct because email is not specifically mentioned
in Secs. 631 and 632, despite the Legislature's acknowledgement
and desire to preclude of new forms of illicit surveillance."

In addition to arguing that California's privacy statutes are not
intended to address e-mails or other electronic communications,
Google has noted that the plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama and
Maryland, and that they have not tied their e-mails to California.

The dismissal motion also alleges that the complaint fails to cite
additional elements of the act related to wiretapping and

"In the context of emails, multiple courts have recognized that no
one can reasonably expect that the emails they send to others will
be free from the automated processing that is normally associated
with delivering emails," Google said.

"Plaintiffs fail to articulate a single concrete injury stemming
from the automated processing of emails sent to Gmail users," it
added.  "Plaintiffs instead rely on conclusory allegations that
their privacy rights were infringed in the abstract."

The class disagrees.

"The Google processes at issue, wholly separate from any
automation necessary to deliver mail, actually involve acts of
reading, learning, and recording content and meaning from private
communications -- something no court has addressed to date," their
30-page opposition states.

"California has a compelling and overriding interest in requiring
resident companies like Google to conduct their business and to
compete in accordance with Cal. Penal Code provisions requiring
the observation of privacy rights," Mr. Arnold added.

The class also says that the state's privacy law "has consistently
been interpreted 'broadly' by the California Supreme Court and in
a manner which militates against efforts designed, like Google's
present plan, to place artificial and illogical limitations on the
protections afforded by California's Invasion of Privacy Act."

Simple automated processes for e-mail are not on trial, "despite
Google best efforts to introduce its concepts that any automated
processes for the delivery and protection of email is justified
and necessary," the brief continues.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh is scheduled to hear the motion and
opposition on March 21.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Google's Motion
to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in Scott, et al. v. Google,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03413 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Clifford Lee Carter, Esq.
          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          E-mail: cliff@justice4you.com

                    - and -

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 328-2200
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com

                    - and -

          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          James C. Wyly, Esq.
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          E-mail: srommel@wylyrommel.com

                    - and -

          Perry D. Litchfield, Esq.
          1000 4th Street, Suite 875
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 459-2000
          E-mail: perry@sprintmail.com

HALLIBURTON CO: Appeal From "John Fund" Suit Class Cert. Pending
Halliburton Company's appeal from the certification of the class
in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Company, et al., is
still pending, according to the Company's October 23, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with
its change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction
projects and related disclosures.  In the weeks that followed,
approximately 20 similar class actions were filed against the
Company.  Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants
several of the Company's present or former officers and directors.
The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al.
v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the
Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of lead
plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.  AMSF has
changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).  The
Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the Company's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the Company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005.  In March 2006, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to
certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing was held on
that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007, the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The court
ordered that the case proceed against the Company and its CEO.

In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company's response was filed in November
2007.  The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued
an order November 3, 2008 denying the motion for class
certification.  The Fund appealed the district court's order to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order denying class certification.  On May
13, 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court.  In early January 2011, the Supreme Court granted
the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal.  The Court heard
oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011,
reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove
loss causation in order to obtain class certification.  The
Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation
requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for
further consideration of the Company's other arguments for denying
class certification.  The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the
district court, and in January 2012, the court issued an order
certifying the class.  The Company filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted and the case is
stayed at the district court pending this appeal.

In spite of its age, the case is at an early stage, and the
Company says it cannot predict the outcome or consequences

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has not accrued any amounts
related to this matter because it does not believe that a loss is
probable.  Further, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss
related to this matter cannot be made, the Company relates.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

HALLIBURTON CO: Still Defends Class Suit Over Duncan Facility
Halliburton Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit relating to the Company's Duncan, Oklahoma
facility, according to the Company's October 23, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Commencing in October 2011, a number of lawsuits were filed
against the Company, including a putative class action case in
federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma and other
lawsuits filed in Oklahoma state courts.  The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that operations at the Company's
Duncan facility caused releases of pollutants, including ammonium
perchlorate and, in the case of the federal lawsuit, nuclear or
radioactive waste, into the groundwater, and that the Company knew
about those releases and did not take corrective actions to
address them.  It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have
suffered from certain health conditions, including hypothyroidism,
a condition that has been associated with exposure to perchlorate
at sufficiently high doses over time. These cases seek, among
other things, damages, including punitive damages, and the
establishment of a fund for future medical monitoring.  The cases
allege, among other things, strict liability, trespass, private
nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence and, in the case of the
federal lawsuit, violations of the U.S. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), resulting in personal injuries, property
damage, and diminution of property value.

The lawsuits generally allege that the cleaning of the missile
casings at the Duncan facility contaminated the surrounding soils
and groundwater, including certain water wells used in a number of
residential homes, through the migration of, among other things,
ammonium perchlorate.  The federal lawsuit also alleges that the
Company's processing of radioactive waste from a nuclear power
plant over 25 years ago resulted in the release of
"nuclear/radioactive" waste into the environment.  In April 2012,
the judge in the federal lawsuit dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA
claim.  The other claims brought in that lawsuit remain pending.

To date, soil and groundwater sampling relating to the allegations
discussed has confirmed that the alleged nuclear or radioactive
material is confined to the soil in a discrete area of the onsite
operations and is not presently believed to be in the groundwater
onsite or in any areas offsite, the Company relates in its SEC
report.  The radiological impacts from this discrete area are not
believed to present any health risk for offsite exposure.  With
respect to ammonium perchlorate, the Company has made arrangements
to supply affected residents with bottled drinking water and, if
needed, with access to temporary public water supply lines, at no
cost to the residents.  The Company has worked with the City of
Duncan and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to
expedite expansion of the city water supply to the relevant areas
at the Company's expense.

The lawsuits are at an early stage, and additional lawsuits and
proceedings may be brought against the Company.  The Company says
it cannot predict their outcome or the consequences thereof.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has accrued $26 million
related to its initial estimate of response efforts, third-party
property damage, and remediation related to the Duncan, Oklahoma
matter.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits and
does not believe that these lawsuits will have a material adverse
effect on its liquidity, consolidated results of operations, or
consolidated financial condition.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Awaits Hearing on Tip Law Violations Suit
Samuel Y. Weinstock, writing for The Harvard Crimson, reports that
a class-action lawsuit alleging that Harvard violated the
Massachusetts "tip law" by withholding service charges from
employees awaits hearing by a federal judge, who will determine
whether the case should be tried in a federal or state court.

The suit, which was filed in September on behalf of the Faculty
Club and Loeb House wait staff, moved from the Middlesex County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Oct.
23 at the request of the defendant, Harvard University.

Harvard's "Notice of Removal" from state court argued that the
relationship between the University and its employees was governed
by its collective bargaining agreement, and the Labor Management
Relations Act transforms the plaintiff's claims into a federal
matter.  However, the wait staff argues that since the lawsuit
refers to a state law, the case should be tried in a Massachusetts
state court.

The complaint, which was originally filed on Sept. 20, stated that
patrons of the Faculty Club and Loeb House pay a surcharge that
"appears to patrons and guests to be a service charge that is
added to food and beverage bills in lieu of a gratuity."  The
University tells guests not to tip otherwise, but, according to
the complaint, Harvard keeps the service charge for its own
operating expenses.

Only days before the complaint was filed, the Harvard Club of
Boston, an entity distinct from the University, settled a "tip
law" suit with its wait staff for $4 million.

The wait staff's attorney, Shannon E. Liss-Riordan '90, who also
represented the Harvard Club workers in their suit, said that she
had filed a motion for the case to be returned to state court.
"This has nothing to do with the collective bargaining agreement,"
she said.  "We're suing under state wage laws."

She said she thought it insensible for workers not to receive
surcharges because their contract does not mention what a state
law does.  "It's kind of crazy to say that wait staff employees
are in worse shape because they're members of a union than if they
weren't," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.

In an e-mailed statement, University spokesperson Kevin Galvin
wrote that the purpose of the surcharge was clear to employees and
customers, and that while the Faculty Club and Loeb House do not
pay their workers with tips, their hourly wage is set by a
contract negotiated with the staff's union, UNITE HERE! Local 26.

These arguments also appeared in the University's answer to the
complaint, along with 16 affirmative defenses.

Ms. Liss-Riordan said that she did not know when the hearing to
decide the case's placement would take place, but that it would
likely happen in the next few months.

HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in Texas
Hyperdynamics Corporation is defending itself against a securities
class action complaint in Texas, according to the Company's
September 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012.

On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and its chief executive officer alleging that the
Company made false and misleading statements that artificially
inflated its stock prices.  The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the Company misrepresented the prospects and progress
of its drilling operations, including its drilling of the Sabu-1
well and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the
Republic of Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the
specific amount of damages is not specified.  On June 1 and June
4, 2012, a number of parties made application to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff for this action, but a lead plaintiff
has not yet been selected by the Court.  The Company anticipates a
consolidated amended complaint will be filed in the matter once a
lead plaintiff is appointed.

Hyperdynamics Corporation is an independent oil and gas
exploration company that was incorporated in 1996 as a Delaware
corporation with large prospects in offshore Republic of Guinea in
Northwest Africa pursuant to rights granted to it by Guinea (the
"Concession") under a Hydrocarbon Production Sharing Contract, as
amended ("PSC").  The Company is the operator and hold a 77%
interest.  Its participant, Dana Petroleum, PLC, which is a
subsidiary of the Korean National Oil Corporation, holds the
remaining 23% interest in the Concession.  In October 2011, the
Company commenced drilling operations on the Sabu-1 well. In
February 2012, the Sabu-1 well reached the planned total depth of
3,600 meters. The well encountered oil shows while drilling the
targeted Upper Cretaceous section and our well-log
interpretations indicated the presence of residual oil in non-
commercial quantities. Subsequent analysis of rock samples from
the well has confirmed the presence of hydrocarbons in fluid
inclusions in the rock. The Company believes: (1) the Sabu-1 well
was not a commercial success because of the lack of reservoir seal
(such as marine shales or reservoir-seal pairs) needed for a
commercial accumulation, and (2) that the evidence that
hydrocarbon generation has taken place in the basin enhances the
prospectivity of its Concession.

HYUNDAI: Sued for Misrepresenting Fuel Economy Ratings
Courthouse News Service reports that Hyundai and Kia
misrepresented the fuel economy ratings of their automobiles, a
class claims in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The case is Kaylene Brady; Travis Brissey; v. Hyundai Motor
America; Kia Motors American.

INTUIT INC: Fed. Court Dismisses "Smith" Lawsuit in Calif.
A California federal court junked a class action against Intuit
Inc. commenced by a certain "Smith", according to the Company's
September 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, two putative class actions were filed against
Intuit Inc. in connection with its TurboTax income tax preparation
software: (1) Smith v. Intuit Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California) and (2) Quildon v. Intuit Inc. (California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County).  The plaintiffs in both cases
assert that the fees charged for the refund processing service
offered within TurboTax are "refund anticipation loans" and the
disclosures about those fees do not comply with California and
federal laws.

The Smith case was brought in federal court on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon case was
brought in state court on behalf of a proposed California class
and subclasses. Otherwise, the two complaints are substantively
identical. In each case, the plaintiffs seek monetary relief
(including restitution, statutory damages, treble damages, and
interest) in an unspecified amount, as well as attorneys' fees and

On February 22, 2012, Intuit removed the Quildon case to federal
court. On March 16, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand
the Quildon case to state court.  On March 19, 2012, Intuit filed
motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in both cases.  On May
25, 2012, the federal court remanded the Quildon case to state
court and denied as moot the motion to dismiss that case.  On July
10, 2012, Intuit filed a motion in state court to stay the Quildon
case until the federal court resolves the Smith case, which the
state court granted on August 6, 2012.  On September 10, 2012, the
federal court issued an order granting Intuit's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' complaint in the Smith matter. The plaintiffs have
30 days from the date of the order to file any amended complaint.

The Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to
the claims asserted in these actions and intend to defend
vigorously against them.  The Company believes that liabilities
associated with these cases, while possible, are not probable, and
therefore it has not recorded any accrual for them as of July 31,
2012.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time, the Company adds.

LOUISIANA CITIZENS: In the Red After Hurricane Isaac Settlements
Melinda Deslatte, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Louisiana's state-run property insurer of last resort is $56
million in the red, after it covers claims for Hurricane Isaac and
settles class-action lawsuits for improper handling of past storm

Steve Cottrell, chief financial officer for the Louisiana Citizens
Property Insurance Corp., delivered the news on Nov. 8 to the
board that governs the insurer.

"Our liabilities are $56 million more than our assets," he told
the board of directors, which approved the latest financial

Also on Nov. 8, the Citizens board agreed to raise its commercial
coverage rates by more than 45 percent across-the-board statewide.
Nearly all of the 5,700 commercial property policies are in the
New Orleans area and coastal parishes.

The new rates will take effect Feb. 1, Mr. Cottrell said.  The
company provides property insurance mostly to coastal Louisiana
homeowners and businesses that can't get insurance through the
private market.

Mr. Cottrell said the company has enough cash to pay Isaac claims
and has a bank line of credit available if Citizens runs into
cash-flow problems.

"We're not going to run out of money," he said.

No decision was made on Nov. 8 about how to close the deficit.
Mr. Cottrell said Citizens officials will present options at the
next board meeting.

Among the options available to Citizens: charging an assessment on
private insurance companies around the state for each property
policy.  The private insurers would pass that cost on to
customers. Another possibility could involve borrowing money
through a bond sale.

Mr. Cottrell said the costs of several legal settlements, along
with Hurricane Isaac's blow to southeastern Louisiana in August,
will drain all the company's reserves.

"This company's just not big enough to absorb these kinds of
expenses," Mr. Cottrell said.

Isaac's costs to Citizens have reached $89 million and are
expected to hit $100 million, said Quin Netzel, vice president and
chief claims officer for the company.  While reinsurance will
cover a slice of those costs, Citizens must pay for the first $75
million, Mr. Cottrell said.

In addition, the company paid a $104 million judgment in July to
thousands of policyholders who sued over the slow adjustment of
claims after hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  Mr. Cottrell
said another $60 million will be paid to settle two remaining
class action lawsuits tied to the company's handling of claims
after those storms.

"How are we ever going to catch up?" asked Treasurer John Kennedy.
"That is the dilemma," Mr. Cottrell replied.

He said the company continues to try to beef up its own insurance
to cover larger shares of the costs after a storm, and he said
Citizens could build up reserves if the state can go several years
without a major event.

NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $115 Mil.
Matthew Drummond and George Liondis, writing for The Australian
Financial Review, report that National Australia Bank has become
the biggest Australian company to pay significant funds to settle
a class action with its shareholders.

NAB will pay $115 million to settle a case brought by plaintiff
firm Maurice Blackburn that alleged the bank was too slow to
reveal its $1.2 billion exposure to complex financial securities
backed by US mortgages during the 2007 and 2008 sub-prime
collapse.  The bank's shares, which went ex-dividend on Nov. 9,
recorded their biggest fall in a year, down 4.26 per cent to close
at $23.81.

Jacob Varghese, the lawyer behind the case, said the $115 million
settlement amount was fair and reasonable even though he had
previously estimated the quantum of losses at $450 million.

"It's difficult to assess what the damages are in a shareholder
action.  Mainly because it's a new jurisdiction in Australia and
we don't have set precedents about what the right measurement of
losses is," he said.

The $115 million settlement figure includes Maurice Blackburn's
costs, estimated at being about $10 million as well as two years
of penalty interest.  In its ASX announcement, NAB preferred to
disclose a settlement figure of $85 million "plus an allowance in
respect of interest and costs".  Of the total, $50 million will be
met by NAB's insurers and the remainder would not be material on
earnings, the bank said.

NAB's company secretary, Michaela Healey, said in the statement
the bank did not admit liability and remained confident about its
legal position.

"The settlement of the class action is a purely commercial
decision made in the interests of our shareholders," she said.

The Australian Financial Review's Street Talk column reported on
November 2 that NAB was poised to settle the case in which it was
alleged the bank took too long to come clean about write-offs to
its portfolio of collateralized debt obligations.

In May 2008, NAB took a provision of $181 million against losses.
Two months later it took another provision of $830 million,
sending its shares down by more than 13 per cent in a single day.

The Nov. 9 settlement means five ASX-listed companies in the past
nine years have now agreed to pay a total of $630 million in
settling shareholder class actions.

Other settlements have involved Aristocrat Leisure, Multiplex and

It is likely to add to calls for greater regulation of litigation
funders, companies who finance class actions in return for a cut
of the proceeds.

A Singapore-based company, International Litigation Funding
Partners, will receive between 30 and 40 per cent of the payout
less Maurice Blackburn's costs.  Last month, the High Court ruled
in a case involving another funder and mining company Kupang
Resources that litigation funders did not need to hold an
Australian Financial Services license, dashing hopes by defense
lawyers that funders would be put on a tighter leash.

Mr. Varghese on Nov. 9 sought to defend the need for litigation
funding and class actions, saying they played an important role in
ensuring listed companies keep their investors informed and
markets transparent.

"Regulators are not resourced so that every time someone does
something wrong they will be able to catch up with them.

"Class actions play an important role in filling the gap.  They
provide an opportunity for shareholders to get some self help," he

About 15,000 investors had signed up to sue NAB, including
hundreds of institutional investors.

The payout caps off a difficult period for the bank, which
reported a $1.1 billion drop in profits, its first decline in
earnings since 2009.

NESTLE USA: Recalls 10.9, 21.8 & 40.7 oz NESQUIK Chocolate Powder
Nestle USA announced the voluntary recall of limited quantities of
Nestle NESQUIK(R) Chocolate Powder in the 10.9, 21.8 and 40.7
ounce canisters.  The voluntary recall is limited to only NESQUIK
Chocolate Powder, which was distributed nationally.  No other
varieties of NESQUIK powder or any sizes or flavors of NESQUIK
ready-to-drink are affected by this recall.

Nestle is removing the canisters from distribution because the
company was notified by an ingredient supplier, Omya Inc. that it
has issued a recall of certain lots of its ingredient, calcium
carbonate due to possible presence of Salmonella.  Calcium
carbonate is used in NESQUIK as an ingredient.  There have been no
reports of any illnesses or adverse health effects associated with
the affected product.

To ensure the safety of consumers, Nestle is recalling selected
NESQUIK Chocolate Powder.  The recall is limited to the following
sizes, UPC and production codes of NESQUIK Chocolate Powder:

   Size                   UPC Code          Production Codes
   ----                   --------          ----------------
   40.7 oz. Chocolate     0 28000 68230 9      2282574810
   (72 servings)                               2282574820

   21.8 oz. Chocolate     0 28000 68090 9      2278574810
   (38 servings)                               2278574820

   10.9 oz. Chocolate     0 28000 67990 3      2278574810
   (19 servings)

The affected NESQUIK Chocolate Powder was produced during early
October 2012.  To locate the production code, consumers should
look on the bottom of the canister, adjacent to the consumer
expiration date.  All affected products have an expiration date of
BEST BEFORE Oct 2014.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm327535.htm

Consumers who may have purchased the affected NESQUIK Chocolate
Powder should not consume it, but instead should return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund or contact Nestle Consumer
Services at (800) 628-7679.

The most common symptoms of Salmonella infection are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps and fever, which develop within eight to 72 hours
of eating or drinking contaminated food.  The illness usually
lasts for four to seven days and most people recover without
treatment.  However, salmonellosis can be severe or even life
threatening for infants, older people, pregnant women and those
with weakened immune systems.  Individuals experiencing these
symptoms should seek medical attention.

Nestle is dedicated to the health and safety of its consumers.
For these reasons, the company initiated this voluntary recall.
The Company apologizes to its consumers and sincerely regrets any
inconvenience created by this incident.

NEW FRONTIER: Faces Class Action Over LFP's Proposed Takeover
Rhett Pardon, writing for XBIZ.com, reports that a suit that seeks
class-action status has been filed against New Frontier Media and
LFP Broadcasting by a shareholder who alleges that LFP's proposed
$33 million takeover of the company is "grossly inadequate."

Plaintiff Craig Telke's suit, filed at U.S. District Court in
Denver on Nov. 8, seeks an injunction over the proposed deal or
rescinding it if the deal is consummated by its scheduled closing
date of Nov. 27, as well as damages and attorneys' fees.

The suit also names as defendants New Frontier Media Chairman Alan
Isaacman and three company board members.

Mr. Telke, who alleges breaches of fiduciary duties "by means of
an unfair process and for an unfair price," said that it was
"unsurprising that Isaacman's ascension to a leadership position
within the company was concurrent with the sales process sharply
favoring Flynt, and ending in a deal with the Flynt-controlled LFP

The suit said that Mr. Isaacman, who was installed as New Frontier
Media's chairman of the board in September, has a long-time
relationship with LFP founder Larry Flynt, stemming back to 1988
when Mr. Isaacman represented him in the U.S. Supreme Court case
between Flynt's Hustler Magazine and Jerry Falwell.

Mr. Telke's accusations specifically allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock-up provisions
that would dissuade other bidders by employing a strict no-
solicitation provision that prevents New Frontier Media from
soliciting other potential acquirers, a provision that provides
LFP Broadcasting with three days to match any competing proposal
in the event one is made and a provision that requires New
Frontier Media to pay LFP a termination fee of $1 million in order
to enter into a transaction with a superior bidder.

Last month, New Frontier Media announced that the adult
transactional TV service had signed a definitive agreement to be
acquired by LFP Broadcasting for $2.02 per common share in cash up
front, or approximately $33 million, plus a contingent cash
payment right for each common share.

LFP and New Frontier Media officials did not immediately respond
for XBIZ comment on Nov. 9.

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Ex-Police Officer Files Overtime Class Action
WWLTV.com reports that a former New Orleans police officer has
filed a lawsuit against the city and police chief, accusing them
of short-changing officers on overtime pay.

Chad Perez, who resigned in August, filed a class-action lawsuit
in federal court seeking damages as well as a change in city

He claims the city violates the fair labor standards act by not
giving officers time-and-a-half pay when they work extra hours.

Mr. Perez also claims that supervisors retaliated against him when
he tried to complain about the pay policy.

The city and police department had no immediate response to the

OCLARO INC: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Pending Court OK
Plaintiffs in a shareholders' litigation against Oclaro, Inc. will
be seeking court approval of a settlement resolving their lawsuit,
according to the Company's September 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2012.

On March 26, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to
acquire Opnext, Inc.  On July 23, 2012, the Company consummated
the acquisition with Opnext through the merger of Opnext with a
newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary of Oclaro.  Pursuant to the
terms of the merger agreement, each outstanding share of common
stock of Opnext was converted into the right to receive 0.42 of a
share of common stock of Oclaro.  The Company issued approximately
38,416,450 shares of its common stock for all of the outstanding
shares of Opnext common stock on July 23, 2012. Stock options and
stock appreciation rights of Opnext were also assumed by the
Company pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement.  The Oclaro
stockholders immediately before the merger now own approximately
57.3% of the combined company, and the former Opnext stockholders
now own approximately 42.7% of the combined company.

Five putative class actions challenging the Merger have been filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Alameda:

   (1) Martin Zilberberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No RG12623460, on
       March 28, 2012;

   (2) Eleanor Welty v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624240, on
       April 4, 2012;

   (3) Todd Wright v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624343, on
       April 5, 2012;

   (4) Stephen Greenberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12624444, on
       April 5, 2012; and

   (5) Mark Graf v. Opnext, Inc., No. RG12624798, on April 9,

Two putative class actions challenging the Merger have been filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery:

   (1) Glenn Freedman v. Opnext, Inc., CA No. 7400-VCL, on April
       5, 2012; and

   (2) Berger v. Bosco, No. 7406-VCL, on April 9, 2012.

The two Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption
In re Opnext, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7400-VCL. The
defendants in each case are Opnext, Inc. and the members of
Opnext's Board (collectively, the Opnext Defendants), Oclaro, Inc.
and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc. (collectively, the Oclaro
Defendants).  Each action alleges that the Opnext Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Opnext stockholders by entering
into the Merger Agreement.  Each action further alleges that the
Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary

On July 6, 2012, plaintiff Wright voluntarily dismissed his
complaint.  On July 31, 2012, the remaining plaintiffs executed a
memorandum of understanding settling these matters, subject to
court approval.

Oclaro Inc. is a tier-one provider of optical communications and
laser components, modules and subsystems for a broad range of
diverse markets, including telecommunications (telecom),
industrial, scientific, consumer electronics and medical.

OCLARO INC: Still Defends Securities Class Action in Calif.
Oclaro Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities class
action complaint in California, according to the Company's
September 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The Court subsequently appointed
the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.  On April 26, 2012, the Pension
Fund filed a second amended complaint, captioned as Westley v.
Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6 and October
28, 2010, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
during this time period regarding its current business and
financial condition, including projections for demand for its
products, as well as its revenues, earnings, and gross margins,
for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full
fiscal year.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act.  The complaint seeks damages and costs of an unspecified
amount.  On May 25, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  That motion was scheduled to be heard on August 31,
2012.  Discovery has not commenced, and no trial has been
scheduled in this action.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
It is unable at this time to estimate the effects of these
lawsuits on its financial position, results of operations or cash

Oclaro Inc. is a tier-one provider of optical communications and
laser components, modules and subsystems for a broad range of
diverse markets, including telecommunications (telecom),
industrial, scientific, consumer electronics and medical.

OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Alfred G. Yates P.C. Files Class Action
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. announced that it has
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of OCZ
Technology Group, Inc. common stock during the period between
July 10, 2012 and October 11, 2012.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-
5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit
http://yatesclassactionlaw.comfor more information.  Any member
of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
10, 2012.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business practices and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company's sales trends were
not as robust as they had stated, and that in order to address
those negative trends in OCZ's business, defendants were promising
to pay customers "incentives" (i.e., rebates) in order to obtain
sales, rendering their statements concerning OCZ's financial
results materially false and misleading.  As a result of these
false statements, OCZ's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $7.67 per share
in intraday trading on July 30, 2012.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
OCZ securities during the Class Period.

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: DUSA Pharmaceuticals Inc., First
California Financial Group, Inc., Gold Resource Corporation, JDA
Software Group Inc., KBW Inc., Metropolitan Health Networks Inc.,
Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., PSS World Medical Inc. (Nasdaq:
PSSI), Schiff Nutrition International Inc., and Warnaco Group Inc.

If you are a shareholder of any of the above companies and wish to
learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions,
please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164,
toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Gun Owners File Privacy Class Action
William Bender, writing for the Daily News, reports that
Philadelphia could be facing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
gun owners who say the city violated their privacy by publishing
their personal information and launching an interactive Web map
that included clickable icons of revolvers over their homes.

Attorney Joshua Prince filed a motion last week in Common Pleas
Court, requesting that the suit be sealed to avoid revealing the
names of his five clients -- and potentially hundreds of others if
the case is granted class-action status.

In August, the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections
introduced a revamped Web site, featuring a map that allowed users
to view the names and addresses of some gun owners in the city,
and the specific reasons why they wanted a permit to carry a
concealed weapon.

Police quickly asked L&I to remove the information, saying it
could jeopardize the safety of the gun owners, including a city
pastor who said he routinely carries large sums of money and had
been robbed before.

"It shouldn't have been there for some obvious reasons," Lt. Ray
Evers, a police spokesman, told the Daily News last month.  "It
slipped out and it shouldn't have."

The information pertained to people who'd been denied a gun permit
or had their existing permit revoked, and had appealed to L&I's
Review Board.  People who obtained gun permits without appealing
to L&I were not on the map, which also included information about
building permits, polling places, parks and code violations.

"I don't know what was in their minds when they did this,"
Mr. Prince said of the city officials who published the gun-permit
information.  "It has an extremely chilling effect on people who
would apply for a license to carry or appeal denials."

Under the state's Uniform Firearms Act, information submitted as
part of the gun-permit process is confidential.  The application
itself states that "all information supplied" is "not subject to
public disclosure."

Mayor Nutter's spokesman, Mark McDonald, has previously said that
the information that L&I published is, in fact, public record
because applicants waive their right to confidentiality when they
appeal a permit denial or revocation.  Mr. McDonald declined to
comment Thursday due to the pending lawsuit.

"I'd ask where in the law it states that," Mr. Prince said.

Mr. Prince said a paralegal was sent to L&I in September to test
Mr. McDonald's assertion that the information is obtainable in
person. Her request was denied, and she was told by a woman at the
counter that "appeal information is confidential," according to
the suit.

PRESSTEK INC: Enters MOU to Resolve 3 MAI Merger-Related Suits
Presstek, Inc. has negotiated a memorandum of agreement resolving
three class action lawsuits relating to its merger deal with MAI
Holdings, Inc., the Company disclosed in its October 23, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 22, 2012, Presstek entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with MAI Holdings, Inc. (Parent) and MAI Merger Corp.
(Purchaser).  As a result of the Merger, each share of the
Company's common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to
the effective time of the Merger will be converted into the right
to receive $0.50 in cash, without interest.  The completion of the
Merger is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of  certain
customary closing conditions.

Two putative class action lawsuits relating to the merger have
been filed in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford,
Connecticut.  The complaints, which purport to be brought as class
actions on behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders,
excluding the defendants and their affiliates, allege the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement by
means of an unfair process and for inadequate consideration.  The
complaints further allege that the Company, Parent and Purchaser
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's directors.
The complaints seek various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the merger from being
consummated in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.  On October
3, 2012, the Company filed motions to dismiss the two actions on
the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the
actions because the claims are derivative claims and not direct

Around mid-September 2012, a third putative class action lawsuit
relating to the merger was filed in the District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  The complaint, which purports to be
brought as a class action on behalf of all of the Company's public
stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates,
alleges the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement by
means of an unfair process and for inadequate consideration.  The
complaint further alleges that the Parent, Purchaser, American
Industrial Partners Capital Fund IV, L.P. and American Industrial
Partners aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's
directors.  The complaint also alleges that the Company's
directors violated federal securities laws by omitting material
information from the proxy statement.

The complaints seek various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the merger from being
consummated in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.

On October 23, 2012, Presstek entered into a memorandum of
understanding memorializing the terms of a settlement of all
litigation, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against all of the defendants.  The proposed settlement
is conditional upon, among other things: the dismissal with
prejudice of the litigation without the award of any damages,
costs, fees or the grant of any other further relief, except for
the award of fees and expenses pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding; the entry of a final judgment in the actions (i)
approving the settlement (including a provision enjoining all
members of the class from asserting any of the released claims),
(ii) providing for the dismissal of the actions and (iii)
approving the release by the class to the defendants; and
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the court.  In connection with the settlement and as
provided in the memorandum of understanding, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  There can
be no assurance that the merger will be consummated, that the
parties ultimately will enter into a settlement or that the court
will approve the settlement.  In such event, the memorandum of
understanding and the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding shall be null and void.  The
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that Presstek stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger.

The defendants deny that they have committed any violations of law
or otherwise failed to act in a proper manner with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the actions and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure was required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.  The defendants have
entered into the memorandum of understanding because the proposed
settlement would eliminate the risk, burden and expense of further
litigation, would resolve all of the claims and permit the merger
to be consummated as scheduled without risk of delay and would
permit Presstek's stockholders to receive the consideration
provided for in the merger agreement.

SAKURA JAPANESE: Tipped Employees File Wage Class Action
Shawn J. Soper, writing for The Dispatch, reports that a West
Ocean City restaurant has been named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit over alleged unfair wages for tipped employees in
what could be a test case of sorts for the hospitality industry.

The Sakura Japanese Steakhouse chain, including its local
restaurant, has been named as a co-defendant in the class action
suit brought by a handful of former employees and filed in U.S.
District Court.  The suit alleges Sakura not only did not meet the
minimum wage requirements under the "tip credit," but also
withheld earnings from tipped employees and used them to
compensate managers and kitchen staff.

"The defendants violated the requirements of the tip credit by
keeping and assigning to their own use a substantial portion of
the tips received by the plaintiffs," the complaint reads.

"Specifically, the defendants took the pooled tips belonging only
to the plaintiffs and used the tip money to pay and increase the
salaries and compensation of managerial and non-customarily tipped
employees including but not limited to the general manager, the
chefs, the kitchen the back-of-the-house staff."

The class action suit alleges Sakura's 13 restaurants failed to
meet state and federal minimum wage requirements for its tipped
employees.  Employers can take advantage of a "tip credit" for
certain employees, allowing them to pay the difference between
what the employees earn as tips and the $7.25 mandated minimum

As a result, according to the complaint, Sakura owes the named
plaintiffs and others who qualify the cash difference of the $3.08
they were paid and the $7.25 mandated minimum wage, or $4.17 per
each hour they worked and were not compensated correctly under the
tip credit.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the state Wage and
Hour Law, in order to qualify for the "tip credit," a business
entity must pay employees who receive gratuities at least half of
the mandated $7.25 per hour minimum wage.  In short, the complaint
alleges the plaintiffs should have been paid $3.63 per hour even
if they had received their entire share from the tip pool and the
gratuities weren't divided between the managers and back-of-the-
house staffs.

"As a consequence of the defendants' withholding, deducting or
refusing the plaintiffs all wages earned in the form of tips or
gratuities, the defendants have failed to pay the plaintiffs for
all wages earned for work duties performed," the complaint reads.

"The defendants' failure and refusal to pay plaintiffs all wages
earned for work performed was willful, intentional and was not the
product of any dispute between any plaintiffs and defendants."

The named plaintiffs are pursuing the case as a collective action
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals who
worked as waiters, waitresses and bussers at all 13 Sakura
restaurants in Maryland including the West Ocean City facility.

While the number of plaintiffs continues to grow, the number
currently comes in at over 200 current or former employees of

The class action suit is seeking to hold Sakura liable for all
unpaid or improperly deducted wages, plus three times the amount
of unpaid wages to be determined by the court as additional
damages and interest along with attorney fees.

SP AUSNET: Class Action Lawyer Says Claims May Reach Millions
ABC News reports that a lawyer organizing a class action on behalf
of people affected by the Black Saturday Murrindindi bushfires, in
north-east Victoria, says claims for losses could reach into the
tens of millions of dollars.

Meetings have been held in Melbourne and Buxton last week for
residents wanting to get more information about the case.

More than 130 people attended the Buxton meeting.

Action is being taken against electricity company SP AusNet, with
claims that faulty powerlines caused the blaze.

The company denies responsibility.

Nicole Sheard from Maurice Blackburn says as many as 800 people
are expected to register to join the action.

"Obviously it's early stages and we do have a long way to go but
we are confident of the prospects of success," she said.

"I think on any view you'd have to say the claim is extensive.

"Forty people lost their lives and over 538 homes were destroyed,
so we'd expect that the claims are worth tens of millions of

She says 400 people have already registered to be part of the
action but that figure is expected to double.

"We're back . . . [before] the court on the 14th of December where
we are hoping that the judge will set down a timetable for the
future conduct of the matter," she said.

"These actions generally tend to take a long time, we estimate it
could take between two to three years for this action to be
finalized if it does end up going to a trial."

SPENCE & CO: Recalls 1,563 Packs of N.Y. Style Nova Lox Salmon
Spence & Co Ltd., of Brockton Massachusetts, a smoked salmon
company is voluntarily recalling New York-Style Nova Lox, 4oz,
Code/Lot: 9720704 due to an abundance of caution because of
possible contamination by Listeria monocytogenes, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant woman.

The recall affects a total of 1,563 packs of Spence & Co Ltd. New
York Style Nova Lox Lot 9720704.

The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows:

   Through Distributors in IL, MO, NJ, MA and in the Detroit area
   between 9.26.12 and 10.5.12

   It has also been distributed to the following retail stores

   Earthfare: AL, NC, GA, SC, TN, FL & OH between 9.28.12 and

   Shaws Supermarkets: New England on 9.28.12. (expiration date

   Roche Bros: MA on 9.26.12 (expiration date 10.19.12).

   Fresh Markets: In FL, GA, KY, IL, AL, AZ, OH, TN, SC, VA, IN,
                  MI, OK & KS.

A picture of the recalled products is available at:


Two possible product related illnesses have been reported, the
bacterium was discovered during routine sampling.

Consumers who have purchased either product should get in touch
with the place of purchase for a full refund or contact the
Company's Consumer number: 508 427 5577, between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

TIERONE CORP: Judge Approves Shareholders' Class Action Settlement
Matt Olberding, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
U.S. District Court judge has signed off on the settlement of a
shareholders' class-action lawsuit against TierOne Corp. and
several of its former officers.

The suit, filed in May 2010, alleged that, starting with a second-
quarter 2008 earnings report released Aug. 8 of that year, TierOne
issued a series of false or misleading financial statements in an
effort to inflate its stock price.  TierOne Bank was closed by the
federal government a month after the lawsuit was filed and the
holding corporation filed bankruptcy a few weeks later.  TierOne
Bank's offices and assets were taken over by Great Western Bank.

Named in the suit along with the company were former CEOs Gilbert
Lundstrom, Michael Falbo and James Laphen; former Chairman of the
Board Charles Hoskins; and former Chief Financial Officer Eugene

Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, in a ruling filed on Nov. 8, called the
settlement fair even though plaintiffs are only recouping about
13.5 percent of their losses.

The $3.1 million settlement, which was negotiated in May, covers
people who bought the stock between Aug. 9, 2007, and May 14,
2010.  According to court documents, nearly 14,000 people were
eligible to file a claim, and 2,885 did.  About $1.1 million will
go to the plaintiffs' attorneys, leaving about $2 million to be
divided among those 2,885 people.  The money will be paid by
insurance companies.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs' attorneys estimated
their losses at about $23 million.

Messrs. Lundstrom and Laphen have settled civil charges and paid
penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission for what the
SEC called a scheme to understate millions of dollars in losses at
TierOne Bank and mislead investors and federal regulators.  Mr.
Lundstrom's son Trevor settled SEC charges of insider trading and
paid a penalty.  An SEC civil action remains pending against Chief
Credit Officer Don Langford.

Messrs. Lundstrom, Laphen, other former officers and board members
also face another lawsuit by the TierOne bankruptcy trustee
accusing them of breaching fiduciary duties and committing

VISA INC: $7.25-Bil. Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that a
federal judge on Nov. 9 granted preliminary approval of a $7.25
billion class-action settlement of litigation against Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Inc. and several large banks over the protests of
numerous merchants and trade groups that argue the deal is flawed.

The deal, announced in July, would allow the card companies and
banks, including Bank of America Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., to put to bed litigation that has lingered since 2005 over
the fees merchants pay on each credit-card transaction, known as
the interchange or swipe fee.  Retailers had argued the defendants
conspired to set such fees at arbitrarily high levels and bound
merchants to rules preventing them from recouping the costs they
pay to accept credit cards.

But in recent months a slew of merchants, including Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc., and trade groups
such as the National Retail Federation and National Association of
Convenience Stores, which is a named plaintiff in the litigation,
have launched an attack on the settlement.  They argue releases
from future litigation granted to Visa and MasterCard under the
settlement are overly broad and that changes to the card
companies' rules, including the ability to surcharge customers who
pay with credit cards, have too many strings attached.

U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson said during a hearing in
Brooklyn on Nov. 9 that arguments raised by opponents of the deal
haven't been persuasive enough to "derail preliminary approval,"
calling concerns voiced so far "overstated."

Attorneys representing opponents of the settlement after the
ruling vowed to continue fighting the deal.

"We're not remotely daunted by today's result," said Jeff Shinder,
an attorney with Constantine Cannon LLP, during an interview.  Mr.
Shinder represents the National Association of Convenience Stores,
National Grocers Association and other named plaintiffs that have
since come out against the deal.  He said he expects "opposition
is going to grow and intensify" as a result of Friday's ruling.

During the hearing before a packed courtroom, Mr. Shinder said the
settlement "threatens to make a bad situation considerably worse."

Visa and MasterCard applauded the judge's decision.

"Our belief that the agreement will eventually receive final
approval was strengthened today," Visa said in a statement.  "As
we have said from the beginning, this settlement is a fair and
reasonable compromise for all parties."

Noah Hanft, general counsel for MasterCard, said in a statement
that the settlement "represents a solution reached after years of
litigation and months of negotiation."

Judge Gleeson last month stated in an order that the deal appeared
to meet the threshold for preliminary approval.  However, he noted
the bar for preliminary approval is significantly lower than for
final approval, which wouldn't come until next year.

Under the settlement, up to eight million merchants could receive
payments totaling $6.05 billion.  In addition, the settlement also
calls for Visa and MasterCard to temporarily reduce swipe fees by
an amount equal to $1.2 billion and would allow merchants for the
first time to charge an extra fee to customers who pay with credit

Visa and MasterCard don't lend or issue cards to consumers;
rather, they operate networks that help process transactions for
banks that issue cards and those that work with merchants.  They
also set the swipe fees that are collected by card-issuing banks
as revenue.

Merchants will have the ability to opt out of the monetary damages
portion of the settlement but are not able to opt out of the rule
changes, a point of contention for critics who say it will be
difficult to bring claims against the companies over potential
misconduct in the future.  Releases granted to Visa and MasterCard
are effective now as a result of preliminary approval but would
become void if final approval isn't granted.

The proposed settlement also has drawn opposition from competitors
of Visa and MasterCard.  American Express Co., which isn't part of
the litigation but faces separate class-action suits over its
merchant fees, is worried the settlement would hinder its ability
to bring antitrust claims against the card networks in the future,
Philip Korologos, an attorney with Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
who represents Amex, said during the hearing.

First Data Corp., a payment processor that handles transactions
for merchants, voiced similar concerns.

The ability to surcharge along with other rule changes is set to
take effect in 60 days.

Supporters of surcharging have argued the practice, which is
allowed in some countries but prohibited by Visa and MasterCard in
the U.S., would allow merchants to recoup the costs they pay for
accepting cards.  However, critics of the settlement argue that
requirements retailers would have to abide by in order to
surcharge would make it too difficult to put the practice in

The settlement would require merchants to notify the payment
networks that they plan to have a surcharge, post signs notifying
customers of surcharges and prevent them from surcharging more
than what they pay to accept cards.  Critics of the settlement
also note that 10 states have laws prohibiting the practice, so
merchants wouldn't be able to charge an extra fee at locations in
those states.

"There's so many limits on it and so many issues with it that it's
hard to see" how merchants will take advantage of it, Mr. Shinder

Attorneys who negotiated the deal on behalf of the proposed class
of merchants defended the settlement, arguing that it includes
substantial reforms for merchants.

"The injunctive relief is meaningful," Laddie Montague, an
attorney with Berger & Montague PC, said, adding the rule changes
will allow merchants to put "downward pressure on the interchange

Mr. Montague and other supporters accused trade groups and some
merchants of spreading misinformation about the deal in order to
drum up additional opposition.

"It's a lot of smoke, and there's very little fire," said Richard
Alan Arnold, an attorney with Kenny Nachwalter PA, who accused
settlement opponents of engaging in a "propaganda campaign."  Mr.
Arnold represents several retailers, including Kroger Co. and
Safeway Inc., that reached a separate but similar settlement with
Visa, MasterCard and the banks.

Judge Gleeson said he plans to appoint an expert counsel to
analyze the potential financial benefits of surcharging to
determine its value to merchants.

Supporters have accused opponents of trying to garner support for
legislation that would permanently lower swipe fees.  Similar
legislation took effect in October 2011 per a provision to 2010's
Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law called the Durbin amendment.
The Durbin amendment cut in half the fees that merchants pay to
accept debit cards, but it didn't affect credit-card swipe fees.

"The objections from retailer lobbying groups are largely
politically motivated, in hopes of influencing Congress to give
them even more political handouts," Trish Wexler, a spokeswoman
for the Electronic Payments Coalition, which represents Visa and
MasterCard, said in a statement.

WET SEAL: Court of Appeal Upholds Class Certification Denial
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News, reports that a suit
by former employees of fashion retailer Wet Seal, who claim they
were illegally required to buy the company's products in order to
work there, and to drive their own vehicles for work purposes
without mileage reimbursement, was properly denied class
certification, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.

Div. Two on Nov. 7 certified for publication an Oct. 12 opinion by
Justice Paul Haerle.  The panel held that San Francisco Superior
Court Judge John Munter did not abuse his discretion when he
concluded that there were too many individual liability issues to
allow the case to proceed as a class action.

The plaintiffs filed suit in September 2008, targeting the dress
code imposed by the company.  While the policy, as revised in
2005, expressly stated that "[e]mployees are not required to wear
the Company's clothing," a previous version contained the same
language, but also required workers to exemplify the fashionable
image "we want to portray," to "reflect Wet Seal style during
working hours," and to wear "clothing consistent with Wet Seal's
brand," if they did not have Wet Seal clothing.

                          Putative Class

The putative class would have consisted of about 12,000 persons
who had worked at 74 Wet Seal and Arden B. stores in California
during the four years leading up to the filing of the complaint.
The plaintiffs claimed that the policy, and the way it was
implemented by management, violated Labor Code provisions and
administrative regulations by requiring employees to bear
necessary work-related expenses, to patronize their employer
without compensation, and to wear apparel and accessories of a
distinctive design or color that were not furnished or paid for by
the employer.

The plaintiffs separately claimed that many employees were forced
to drive from one store to another to attend meetings or perform
other work and were not reimbursed for mileage.

Judge Munter concluded that the dress code claim was not
appropriate for class certification because many employees had
submitted declarations saying that they were not required to wear
Wet Seal clothing at work, and many supervisors said that they did
not require employees to purchase or wear the company's products.
That evidence, together with the lack of a written policy
incorporating the alleged requirement that employees spend their
own money to acquire the company's merchandise, made individual
issues predominant, the judge said.

He also declined to certify a class with respect to the travel
reimbursement claim, noting that the company's written policies
expressly provided for reimbursement, that the company issued a
standard form for employees to claim recompense, and that many
employees said in declarations that they had not incurred any
work-related expenses for which they were not reimbursed.

                       Trial Court Affirmed

Justice Haerle, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the law and
the evidence supported the trial judge's position.  There were, he
said, "numerous flaws in the plaintiffs' theory that Wet Seal's
written dress code policy provides a common class-wide common
method of proving liability."

If, as several dozen employees claimed in their declarations,
those workers were compelled to purchase Wet Seal merchandise,
contrary to the written policy, that does not make the claim
appropriate for class certification, the justice wrote. The trial
judge, he said, "did not hold or intimate that this evidence
precludes plaintiffs from proving their individual claims against
Wet Seal."

The travel reimbursement claim, the justice similarly wrote, is
not amenable to class treatment because the plaintiffs' own
evidence contradicts their claim that there was a company-wide
practice of not paying reimbursement.

"For example . . . some of the employees who submitted
declarations on behalf of the plaintiffs stated that they had been
reimbursed for mileage, while others had not," Judge Haerle wrote.
"Moreover, Wet Seal produced evidence that over 100 putative class
members were reimbursed for mileage, gas, bus fare, travel meals
and various other expenses incurred in connection with their

The case is Morgan v. Wet Seal, Inc., 12 S.O.S. 5755.

WHIRLPOOL: Front-Loading Washing Machine Litigation May Proceed
Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
appellate counsel of record, announced that the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals on Nov. 13 ordered that consumers in six states
-- California, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas --
who allege that Sears sold them allegedly defective Kenmore front-
loading "high efficiency" washing machines manufactured by
Whirlpool may band together in a class action to hold Sears
accountable.  Sears sells hundreds of thousands of these washing
machines nationwide each year.

Mr. Selbin commented, "The Seventh Circuit has reaffirmed that
when a manufacturer sells a defective product to thousands of
consumers, the doors to the federal courts -- and justice -- are
not closed just because each consumer only suffered a few hundred
or thousands of dollars in damages. We are gratified that our
clients and the thousands of consumers like them will have their
day in court."

In reaching its decision, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, writing
for a unanimous court, stated, "The only individual issues --
issues found in virtually every class action in which damages are
sought -- concern the amount of harm to particular class members.
It is more efficient for the question whether the washing machines
were defective -- the question common to all class members -- to
be resolved in a single proceeding than for it to be litigated
separately in hundreds of different trials . . ." (Opinion, at
page 8.)

Background on the Front-Loading Washing Machine Litigation

Consumers in multiple states have filed separate class action
lawsuits against Sears and Whirlpool. The complaints charge that
certain front-loading automatic washers manufactured by Whirlpool
and sold under the Whirlpool and Sears Kenmore brand names are
defectively designed in that they are unable to adequately clean
themselves and develop mold, often resulting in foul odors.
Consumers have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars each on
repairs and other steps to deal with these problems, none of which

In the Sears litigation, before United States District Court
Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois, the
complaint charges that the front-loading "high efficiency" Kenmore
washing machines Sears has sold since 2001 are defective. As
summarized by the appellate court, "[b]ecause of the low volume of
water used in these machines and the low temperature of the water,
compared to the volume and temperature of the water in the
traditional top-loading machine, they don't clean themselves
adequately and as a result biofilm -- a mass of microbes -- forms
in the machine's drum (where the washing occurs) and creates mold,
which emits bad odors. Traditional household cleaners do not
eliminate the biofilm, the mold, or the odors." (Opinion, at page

The complaint also alleges that a flaw in the control unit in some
of the washers causes them to stop suddenly. The district court
denied certification of the class complaining about the mold
defect and granted certification of the class complaining about
the defect that causes the sudden stoppage.

In t[he] opinion, the appellate court reversed the district
court's denial of class certification regarding the mold claim and
affirmed the grant of class certification regarding the control
unit claim.

Recently, in the Whirlpool litigation, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld certification of an Ohio class charging that its
front-loading washing machines suffer from the defect. In re
Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability
Litigation, 358.89 C.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012). Lieff Cabraser is
court-appointed lead counsel in that case.

Consumers who have experienced mold or odor problems with their
Whirlpool or Sears/Kenmore front load washers can report problems
to Lieff Cabraser by visiting


   Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
   Jonathan D. Selbin
   Tel. No.: 212-355-9500
   E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com


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  * * *