---

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

           Thursday, February 7, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 27

                             Headlines


ABX LOGISTICS: Settles US Freight Forward Surcharge Class Action
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Judge Terminates Class Action Over Drink Prices
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $2.8-Bil. Buyout
CANADA: Three Law Firms Join Forces in Data Breach Class Action
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Remains Pending

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Ex-Students' Suits
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Has Resolved "Reed" Arbitration Demand
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties Continue to Negotiate
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Pending

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Trial in "Madden" Suit to Occur This Quarter
CREXUS INVESTMENT: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Still Pending in California
EBAY INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violation Suits vs. Units
EBAY INC: Suits vs. StubHub Remain Pending in Various States

JELD-WEN: Ex-Employees Sue Over Retirement Benefit Plan Losses
MERCK & CO: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Vioxx Class Action
MERITOR INC: Class Suits Over Filters Remain Pending in Canada
MIDLAND FUNDING: "Funderburke" Parties to Proceed to Arbitration
MIRENA: Class Action or MDL Over IUD Risks Still Likely

MONIER INC: Averts $250-Mil. False Advertising Class Action
NATIONAL BEEF: Workers' Suit Gets Conditional Class Action Status
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Sued for Allegedly Concealing Brain Injury Data
NESTLE USA: Disputes Claims in DiGiorno Pizza Class Action
NESTLE WATERS: Judge Tosses $50-Mil. Late Fee Class Action

NETFLIX INC: Wants Consolidated Securities Litigation Stayed
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
PFIZER: Faces Class Action Over Zoloft Deceptive Marketing
POWERCOR: Judge Okays Pomborneit Bushfire Class Action Settlement
R-KANE PRODUCTS: Recalls Z Pro High Protein Supplements

SPI ELECTRICITY: March 22 Class Action Registration Deadline Set
SYNGENTA CROP: 25 Tri-State Towns Get Atrazine Settlement Checks
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Defends Two Securities Suits in Kentucky
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Has Yet to Submit Settlement Documentations
TICKETMASTER: Canadians Get Checks in TicketsNow Suit Settlement

TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma
VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Class Suits v. Units Remains Pending
XO HOLDINGS: Icahn Fails to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit


                           *********



ABX LOGISTICS: Settles US Freight Forward Surcharge Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide NV/SA has entered into an agreement to
settle a US class action lawsuit alleging anticompetitive
practices in relation to certain surcharges for freight forwarding
services.  The class action lawsuit is related to ABX LOGISTICS
Worldwide NV/SA, a subsidiary taken over in 2008 in connection
with DSV's acquisition of ABX LOGISTICS.

The settlement, which is subject to US court approval, provides
that ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide NV/SA will pay an amount of USD3.5
million.

DSV intends to seek reimbursement of the financial loss from the
previous owners of ABX LOGISTICS in accordance with the agreements
made with these parties.  On this basis, DSV believes that the
case will have no impact on the financial position of the Group.


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Judge Terminates Class Action Over Drink Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
judge on Jan. 30 tossed a class action accusing Applebee's
International Inc. and International House of Pancakes LLC of
violating state consumer law by excluding drink prices from their
menus, saying a revised complaint wasn't enough to save the case.

U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Simandle said named plaintiff
Candice Watkins' latest complaint failed to correct the defects in
her previous complaint, which the court dismissed in August, and
consequently terminated the case.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $2.8-Bil. Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, reports that a Delaware
Chancery judge on Jan. 31 tossed a shareholder class action over
private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners LP's $2.8 billion
buyout of BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., finding the plaintiffs failed
to show BJ's board had acted in bad faith in agreeing to the deal.

The plaintiffs failed to seriously challenge the board's financial
disinterestedness and independence from the deal or allege facts
supporting the claim that the board consciously disregarded its
duties in securing the takeover, according to Vice Chancellor John
W. Noble.


CANADA: Three Law Firms Join Forces in Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham is
joining a consortium of three law firms from across the country in
a national class-action lawsuit against the Attorney General of
Canada.

The basis of the legal action is the breach of privacy of more
than half a million people in the recent loss of Canada Student
Loan borrower information by Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada.

On Jan. 11, the federal government announced that personal and
financial information of about 583,000 student loan borrowers was
lost.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada said an external
hard drive containing data on Canada Student Loans Program
borrowers from 2000-2006 was lost from an office in Gatineau, Que.

On Jan. 17, Buckingham Law filed a national class action.  Sutts,
Strosberg LLP, Falconer Charney LLP and Branch MacMaster LLP
subsequently initiated legal proceedings.

"Our consortium brings a tremendous breadth and depth of
experience to this national class action," Mr. Buckingham said in
a news release on Feb. 1 from Windsor, Ont. lawyer Harvey T.
Strosberg and Buckingham Law.

"Bob Buckingham Law is pleased to join with some of the most
experienced and successful class action lawyers in the country.
This consortium will position us to bring this matter to a fair
and reasonable resolution for the hundreds of thousands of
Canadians affected," Mr. Buckingham said.

"The loss of confidential personal information is a serious issue
in the digital age," said Mr. Strosberg.  "Through this class
action, our experienced national legal team will seek to hold the
Government of Canada accountable."

The consortium will be seeking general damages for negligence,
breach of privacy and breach of contract, along with damages for
actual out-of-pocket expenses, costs and lost time.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
(heating, ventilation and airconditioning system) students from
the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The arbitration demand
alleges violations of California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional deceit, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  On November 22,
2011, a California state court judge refused to confirm the
arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded the matter
to the arbitrator for further consideration.  The Company has
appealed the state court order.  The Company believes the
complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these allegations.

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

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Ex-Students' Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits initiated by former students in California,
according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students.  In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint.  The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity-and aggressive lawyer recruitment of
potential clients-surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters that occurred during that time period.  Most of
the cases filed during that time have since been dismissed.  In
virtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs
cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,
public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ.  The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved to compel these cases to arbitration.

A brief summary of such matters are:

(I) Dated Filed: January 24, 2011, and February 17, 2011

     Plaintiffs and Campus Attended: Kevin Ferguson; Everest
      Institute in Miami, Florida; and Sandra Muniz; Heald
      College campuses in Rancho Cordova and Roseville,
      California (initially filed as separate actions, but
      subsequently consolidated)

     Venue: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

     Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
      misrepresentations by specific admissions representative at
      a specific campus regarding accreditation, transferability
      of credits, cost of attendance, eligibility for
      certifications, and career placement opportunities; Causes
      of action alleging breach of implied contract, breach of
      implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation
      of California's Business and Professions Code, violation of
      California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent
      misrepresentation and fraud; Complaint seeks class
      certification, injunctive relief, restitution,
      disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and cost of
      lawsuit.

     Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended any
      Everest institution in the United States or Canada from
      January 2005 to the present; all persons who attended any
      Heald institution from January 2009 to the present

     Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive
      claims to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims
      to remain before the court; the Company appealed the order
      as it relates to the injunctive claims, and the court of
      appeal stayed the district court action pending the appeal.

(II) Dated Filed: March 11, 2011

     Named Plaintiffs and Campus Attended: Noravel Arevalo and
      fourteen former students at the Company's Everest College
      location in Alhambra, California

     Venue: American Arbitration Association

     Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
      misrepresentations by specific admissions representatives
      at a specific campus and unlawful business practices in the
      licensed vocational nursing program in Alhambra, CA; Causes
      of action alleging violation of the California Consumer
      Legal Remedies Act, fraud, breach of contract, violation of
      California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational
      Education Reform Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced
      and Corrupt Organizations Act, violation of California's
      Business and Professions Code; Complaint seeks class
      certification, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and
      disgorgement, civil penalties, punitive damages, treble
      damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of lawsuit and
      other relief.

     Description of Putative Class: The matters are proceeding on
      a individual basis.

     Status Update: Individual arbitration demands have been
      filed, and arbitration hearings are scheduled to begin
      during the quarter ending March 31, 2013.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Michael Harrington against
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court.  A virtually identical action with the
same caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on
September 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the
Company's Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege
violations of California's Business and Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for
all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged
failure to pay wages upon termination.  The Alameda complaint has
since been voluntarily dismissed.  While the scope of the putative
class is not clear, the remaining Orange County action appears to
seek certification of a class of current and former admissions
representatives over the last four years at the Company's
California campuses.  The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Has Resolved "Reed" Arbitration Demand
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. disclosed in its February 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2012, that it has resolved the
individual arbitration demand by "Mr. Reed" for an immaterial
amount.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.  Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre-and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,
cost of lawsuit, and such other relief as the court deems proper.
On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a putative class
action demand in arbitration.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but did not address
whether a class should be certified.  The Company appealed the
clause-construction decision, and on June 15, 2012, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion overturning the
arbitrator's decision and ruling that the enrollment agreement is
not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  The plaintiff's motion
for a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit was denied, and the
deadline to seek review by the United States Supreme Court passed
without action by the plaintiff.  The Company subsequently
resolved the individual arbitration demand by Mr. Reed for an
immaterial amount.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties Continue to Negotiate
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs were thirty-three individuals who purport to be current
and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program
at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs sought to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on
behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue
and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and
such other relief as the court deemed proper.  The Company removed
the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted.  Thirty-one plaintiffs
filed individual demands in arbitration, and individual
arbitration hearings commenced during the quarter ended June 30,
2012.  The Company and the plaintiffs have since agreed to hold
the hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions.

The Company continues to believe these matters are without merit
and will continue to defend itself vigorously if a reasonable
resolution cannot be achieved.

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

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in California remains pending, according to
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section
20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.  On March 30,
2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System and
Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead
plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.  Lead plaintiffs
thereafter filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and the
Company moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint.  On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.  On February
29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (the
"TAC") in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the Company
and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  On
August 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's and
the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, and the Company will
continue to defend itself and its current and former officers
vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Trial in "Madden" Suit to Occur This Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to occur during the quarter ending March 31,
2013, in the class action lawsuit brought by Roger Madden,
according to Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On November 17, 2008, an action captioned Mary Credille and Roger
Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The two originally-named plaintiffs are former employees of the
Company's Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive proper
compensation for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff Credille has
voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Company.  On December
8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include those current
and former admissions representatives at the Company's Chicago
campus who also satisfy additional requirements.  A total of three
former employees, including Madden, have elected to participate in
the lawsuit.  Trial is scheduled to occur during the quarter
ending March 31, 2013.  The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to continue vigorously defending itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CREXUS INVESTMENT: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Crowell, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Kevin J. Riordan, Patrick J. Corcoran, Robert B. Eastep, Nancy
Jo Kuenstner, CreXus Investment Corp., Annaly Capital Management,
Inc. and CXS Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 650358/2013 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., February 1, 2013) is a shareholder class action, which
seeks to enjoin the proposed acquisition of CreXus by Annaly and
the Merger Sub in a transaction valued at approximately $1
billion, or $13.00 in cash, plus pro-rated quarterly dividends.

Mr. Crowell contends that in approving the Proposed Acquisition,
the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure to CreXus
shareholders by agreeing to sell CreXus without first taking steps
to ensure that he and Class members would obtain adequate, fair
and maximum consideration under the circumstances.  He argues that
the Company's true value is compromised by the consideration
offered in the Proposed Acquisition and that the Proposed
Acquisition is the product of the Board's breaches of fiduciary
duty, and aiding and abetting by Annaly and CreXus.

Mr. Crowell is a holder of CreXus common stock.

CreXus is a Maryland corporation based in New York.  CreXus
acquires, manages and finances, directly or through its
subsidiaries, commercial mortgage loans and other commercial real
estate debt, commercial real property, commercial mortgage-backed
securities and other commercial and residential real estate-
related assets.  Annaly, a Maryland corporation owns, manages, and
finances a portfolio of real estate related investment securities,
including mortgage pass-through certificates, collateralized
mortgage obligations, agency callable debentures, and other
securities representing interests in or obligations backed by
pools of mortgage loans.  Annaly is the beneficial owner of
9,527,778 shares of CreXus common stock representing approximately
12.4% of all outstanding Company shares.  Merger Sub is a Maryland
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Annaly.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Still Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  These lawsuits contain
allegations related to violations of aspects of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a previous
settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or allege that
PayPal, a subsidiary of eBay Inc., improperly held users' funds or
otherwise improperly limited users' accounts.  These lawsuits seek
damages as well as changes to PayPal's practices, among other
remedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of
other laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to
significant liability.  Any changes to PayPal's practices
resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend substantial resources, which could
delay other planned product launches or improvements and further
harm the Company's business.

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


EBAY INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violation Suits vs. Units
------------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. continues to defend its subsidiaries against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing
allegations that the Company's businesses violated the TCPA.
Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in February 2012) contains
allegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products and
services were sent via text message to mobile phones without prior
consent.  Murray v. Bill Me Later (filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in June 2012) contains
allegations that Bill Me Later made calls featuring artificial or
prerecorded voices without prior consent.  These lawsuits seek
damages (including statutory damages) and injunctive relief, among
other remedies.  Given the enormous number of communications the
Company sends to its users, a determination that there have been
violations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's
practices (or those of any of the Company's other companies) under
the TCPA or other communications-based statutes could expose the
Company to significant damage awards that could, individually or
in the aggregate, materially harm its business.


EBAY INC: Suits vs. StubHub Remain Pending in Various States
------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits over the resale of tickets remain pending,
according to eBay Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub
sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert
tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were
resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale
price law (which has been subsequently amended).  In February
2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications
Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further held that
StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade
practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and
certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.  In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals overturned the lower court's decision.  The Court of
Appeals decision is now final.  Similar actions are pending in
other states.  Laws and regulations governing the resale of event
tickets outside the U.S. (for example, in Europe) may be more
restrictive, and carry harsher penalties and fines, than
corresponding U.S. laws and regulations.  In 2012, France passed a
law prohibiting the habitual resale of event tickets without
permission from the event organizer.  In addition, the
unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is illegal in the
U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  Such litigation could result in damage awards,
could require the Company to change its business practices in ways
that may be harmful to the Company's business, or could otherwise
negatively affect its tickets business.


JELD-WEN: Ex-Employees Sue Over Retirement Benefit Plan Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herald and News reports that three former Jeld-Wen employees have
filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that a 2010
amendment to the company's retirement benefit plan unlawfully cost
them hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement payouts.

The lawsuit alleges that changes to Jeld-Wen's Employee Stock
Ownership and Retirement Plan resulted in a collective loss of
value approaching $650,000.

The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of the potentially hundreds
of other Jeld-Wen employees scattered across the nation.


MERCK & CO: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Vioxx Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Merck & Co. shareholders can go forward with a class-action suit
alleging the company misrepresented the safety of its arthritis
drug Vioxx and that share prices fell when the true risk was
disclosed.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler in Newark granted
certification on Jan. 30 for a class of plaintiffs claiming the
company's statements violated the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

Judge Chesler rejected Merck's argument that factual variations in
the plaintiffs' claims defeat the typicality and adequacy
requirements for class certification.

The suit, In Re Merck & Co. Securities, Derivative & ERISA
Litigation, 05-1151 and 05-2367, was filed in November 2003.
Judge Chesler dismissed it as untimely in 2007 but the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated it in 2008, and the
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2010.

Judge Chesler certified a class of persons and entities who
acquired Merck common stock or call options or sold Merck put
options between May 21, 1999, when Vioxx went on-the-market, and
Sept. 29, 2004, when it was pulled from shelves amid indications
that users faced increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The judge appointed Steven LeVan, Jerome Haber and Richard
Reynolds as class representatives.

In opposing certification, Merck claimed the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
was undone by some class representatives' individual
circumstances.  The company noted Mr. Reynolds did not have any
input into his decision to purchase Merck stock, but had delegated
authority on such decisions to an investment adviser.  Merck also
noted that Mr. Reynolds continued to buy Merck stock after the
company disclosed the health risks of prolonged use of Vioxx.

But Judge Chesler said the circumstances cited by Merck "amount to
no more than minor factual differences" which "do not destroy the
fundamental similarity between lead plaintiffs' and the absent
class members' claims of injury as a result of Merck's
misrepresentations and omissions about Vioxx."  Even if Mr.
Reynolds made his purchases based only on an analysis of Merck's
stock price, as defendants maintain, he is not precluded from
asserting the same fraud-on-the-market doctrine that other
plaintiffs rely on, says Judge Chesler.  And Mr. Haber's purchase
of Merck stock through an investment adviser likewise fails to
distinguish his circumstances from those of the class under the
fraud on-the-market doctrine, Judge Chesler said.

The "fraud on-the-market" doctrine uses stock price as a proxy for
demonstrating actual and direct reliance on a fraudulent statement
or omission, since it is "based on the hypothesis that, in an open
and developed securities market, the price of a company's stock is
determined by the available material information regarding the
company and his business," Judge Chesler said, citing Basic, Inc.
v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

Merck also claimed that the same factual variations in the class
representatives' circumstances render their interests antagonistic
to the interests of the class as a whole, defeating the adequacy
requirement.  But Judge Chesler said the differences cited "do not
remotely approach the level of fundamental conflict required to
demonstrate inadequacy."

Merck further argued that the class failed to meet the
predominance standard under R. 23(b), because no showing was made
that class members relied on the company's misrepresentations and
omissions concerning Vioxx.  Judge Chesler cited the Supreme
Court's establishment in Basic of a rebuttable presumption of
classwide reliance based on the fraud on-the-market theory.

The plaintiffs are entitled to invoke the fraud on-the-market
theory of reliance because Merck stock is traded on the
"indisputably efficient" New York Stock Exchange and because of
the public nature of the misrepresentations and nondisclosures at
issue, Judge Chesler said.  The plaintiffs need not conduct an
analysis to demonstrate the NYSE's efficiency because it has been
consistently recognized as such by the Third Circuit and other
federal appellate courts, he said.

Judge Chesler said issues to be resolved in the case include
whether defendants made false statements and/or omissions with
regard to the safety of Vioxx; whether such statements and/or
omissions related to material facts; whether such statements
and/or omissions were made with the requisite scienter; whether
class members relied on such statements and/or omissions in
connection with their respective transactions in Merck securities
during the class period; whether such misrepresentations and/or
omissions resulted in "loss causation"; and the economic loss
suffered by the class as a whole.

Mark Levine of Stull, Stull & Brody in New York, co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, said that "getting class certification is
always a very significant event."  Brickfield & Donahue of River
Edge and the New York firms of Milberg and Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman also represent the class.  Attorneys
representing Merck, from the firms of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in
New York and Hughes, Hubbard & Reed in Washington, D.C., did not
return calls about the ruling.  A Merck spokesman did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.


MERITOR INC: Class Suits Over Filters Remain Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against manufacturers of automotive filters
remain pending in Canada, according to Meritor, Inc.'s
February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2012.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated
corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit was a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Several parallel purported class actions,
including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filed
by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.  The U.S. cases were consolidated into a multi-
district litigation proceeding in Federal court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of
the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same
allegations.  In April 2012, the Company settled with indirect
purchasers for $3.1 million.

In August 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
for the remaining claims with the U.S. direct purchasers for $8.3
million.  The settlement payment was made during the first quarter
of fiscal year 2013.  Following this settlement, the only
remaining plaintiffs in the litigation are those who filed their
actions in Canada.

The Company believes any liability associated with the claims of
such plaintiffs will be immaterial.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a global
supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and
components serving light vehicles, commercial trucks, trailers,
and specialty original equipment manufacturers, as well as certain
aftermarkets.


MIDLAND FUNDING: "Funderburke" Parties to Proceed to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ANN FUNDERBURKE, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, L.L.C., Defendant, Case
No. 12-2221-JAR/DJW, District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued an
order on February 1, 2013, staying all proceedings and ordering
the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The class action was originally filed in Wyandotte County, Kansas
District Court. In her complaint, Ms. Funderburke alleges that
Midland improperly obtained judgments against her and similarly
situated others as the assignee of certain credit card debt. She
alleges that the judgment against her was improper because Midland
was not licensed to collect supervised loans under Kansas law,
and, therefore, the debt was unenforceable.  Ms. Funderburke
further claims that Midland violated the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act by representing to her that the debt was
enforceable, and asserts state law tort claims for abuse of
process and conversion.  The case was removed on April 17, 2012,
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Midland asked the court stay trial court proceedings and compel
arbitration.

Judge Robinson determined that the parties entered into an
agreement to arbitrate and Ms. Funderburke failed to meet her
burden of showing waiver of the right to arbitrate the dispute.

Judge Robinson also declined to apply judicial estoppel in the
matter saying Ms. Funderburke makes many of the same arguments in
advocating application of judicial estoppel as she does in arguing
that Midland waived its right to compel arbitration.  "The Court
has already disposed of these arguments," she said.

The Court directed Midland to file a status report by June 30,
2013, advising whether the matter has been resolved or whether
arbitration is still pending.

A copy of the District Court's February 1, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/RK2U31from Leagle.com.


MIRENA: Class Action or MDL Over IUD Risks Still Likely
-------------------------------------------------------
According to Seedol.com, although the request by the defendant in
the Mirena Lawsuit to create a Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrict
litigation was opposed by lawyers representing plaintiffs, this
does not mean that Plaintiffs Mirena Lawyers are opposed to a
Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation or Class Action.

The reason Plaintiffs Lawyers opposed the request by the
defendants to form the Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL) was because the defendant, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, requested
that the Mirena Lawsuit MDL be assigned to a Federal Court in a
district where they have major operations and employ many people.
Plaintiffs Lawyers were successful in their opposition of the
formation of a Mirena Lawsuit MDL in New Jersey.

         Mirena Class Action Lawsuit or MDL Still Likely

Even though the request by the defendants in the Mirena Lawsuit to
form an MDL was denied, the formation of a Mirena Class Action
Lawsuit or Mirena Lawsuit MDL is still likely to occur. Plaintiff
Lawyers are largely in favor of the formation of a Class Action
Lawsuit for Mirena or a Mirena MDL, however they do not want the
consolidation of Mirena Cases to occur in a jurisdiction that is
favorable to the defendants.

              Mirena IUD Lawsuits Can Still be Filed

The FDA received over 40,000 reports of adverse events related to
the Mirena IUD Birth Control Device.  This is a staggering number
of reports considering the fact that most people do not even know
that the FDA adverse event reporting system exists.  Considering
the massive number of adverse events that were reported to the FDA
due to injuries from Mirena, the likelihood that far more Mirena
Side Effects injury victims exist that were not reported.

Mirena Birth Control Lawsuits can still be filed.  Regardless of
whether a Mirena Class Action Lawsuit, or a Mirena MDL is formed
or not, individual women injured by the Miren IUD Birth Control
device can still file Mirena Lawsuits.  If a mass action such as a
Mirena Class Action Lawsuit or a Mirena MDL is formed, women who
have filed lawsuit can elect to add their cases to the mass action
or maintain them as separate cases in the jurisdiction in which
they were filed.


MONIER INC: Averts $250-Mil. False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a concrete roof
tile manufacturer escaped a class action seeking $250 million over
allegations of falsely advertising the durability of its products
on Jan. 28 after a California court found the plaintiffs had
relied on a speculative sampling methodology to support their
claims.

A class of 128,000 members had asked the Placer County Superior
Court to award more than a quarter of a billion dollars in damages
against Monier Inc., which the plaintiffs say falsely marketed
concrete roof tiles as "50 year" and "lifetime".


NATIONAL BEEF: Workers' Suit Gets Conditional Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has granted
conditional class action status to the lawsuit against National
Beef by workers at its Liberal slaughterhouse.

The decision on Jan. 31 by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil
certifies the class for purposes of sending notices to workers who
might wish to join the lawsuit filed last May.

Workers at the southwest Kansas plant are seeking unpaid wages and
overtime on behalf of some 2,000 employees.  At issue is the
practice of paying meat-processing workers based on so-called gang
time, which counts only the time the production line runs.

Judge Vratil has now certified a class comprised of all hourly
production workers who have been subject to such compensation in
the past three years.  She approved Valente Sandoval Barbosa and
Carolina Gaytan as class representatives for hourly meat
processing workers.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Sued for Allegedly Concealing Brain Injury Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Radio International reports that thousands of former
professional football players and their wives have filed a class
action lawsuit against the National Football League.  Now, the NFL
is faced with ameliorating the problem, as well as, perhaps, a
legal battle that the organization could lose.

More than 4,000 former professional football players and their
wives have filed a class action lawsuit against the National
Football League, accusing the league of deliberately concealing
information about life-altering brain injuries caused by playing
football.

Attorney Gene Locks will be representing the plaintiffs.  Paul
Barrett, assistant managing editor at Bloomberg Businessweek, said
he's one of the most-feared plaintiff's attorneys in the country.

"(Locks) was one of the pioneers in the massive asbestos
litigation that began in the 1970s. (He) made a small fortune
representing pipe-fitters and others who were exposed to asbestos
insulation and then went on to bring other mass lawsuits," he
said.

Mr. Locks deals with damages on the order of billions of dollars
in these massive lawsuits, Mr. Barrett said.

But Mr. Locks, his colleagues and his clients face challenges
ahead.  They'll be trying to argue against the idea that these
players knew what risks they faced when they became professional
football players.

"Lawyers call (this argument) assumption of risk, which is the
defense argument that you knew what you were getting into," he
said.

Mr. Barrett says the players knew it was dangerous, but the NFL
knew playing could cause them permanent brain damage -- and
covered the information up, or so the plaintiffs contend.

"It is impossible for the (NFL) to argue that they were unaware of
the issue.  As early as 1994, they set up a committee specifically
to study and issue reports on the issue," he said.

The committee, though, functioned mostly to deny reports of brain
injury, rather than aggressively investigating the cases brought
forth, Mr. Barrett said.

"The question is, will the league at this point, proactively
figure out a way to settle this litigation, put more money into
research and treatment and move forward, or will this turn into a
tremendous legal food fight?" he said.

The NFL, Mr. Barrett says, is moving forward and seems to be
trying to solve the problem.

The Boston Globe reported on Jan. 29 that the union representing
NFL players has selected Harvard University to lead a $100 million
study to research, treat and prevent the broad-ranging health
problems of these athletes.

There's a limited pool of plaintiffs in this case made up of
thousands of former players, Mr. Barrett said.  Players who have
recently started playing professionally can't be added to the
lawsuit because they can't argue they didn't understand the
dangers of the sport.

"I think what we're going to see is that after a few rounds of
legal skirmishing, the lawyers will get together around a
conference table in private and will come up with a way to set
aside some billions of dollars to be paid out over many years to
treat players and investigate the problem," he said.


NESTLE USA: Disputes Claims in DiGiorno Pizza Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Monaco, writing for Examiner.com, reports that in a tweet
dated Friday, Feb. 1, DiGiorno Pizza informed consumers that their
pizzas are safe and in compliance with USDA and FDA requirements.
In addition, Nestle USA issued a press release on Wednesday,
Jan. 30, regarding the $5 million class-action filed against the
company over their pizza brands DiGiorno, Stouffer's and
California Kitchen.  The class-action lawsuit claims that the
company's pizzas contain trans-fat and are a danger to public
health.

In the press release Nestle USA says:

"Nestle is disappointed in this lawsuit as we strongly believe
that the allegations in this lawsuit are baseless.  Our pizzas are
safe and in strict compliance with the requirements of USDA and
FDA.

The presence of any trans fats (TFAs) are clearly listed on our
ingredients labels.  Since we acquired the business three years
ago from Kraft, we have worked to improve our recipes by reducing
the number of ingredients and have reduced the amount of TFAs in
our pizzas by 50 percent.

FDA and USDA recognize TFAs as a lawful ingredient in food
products, and regulate their use and labeling.

We believe people want to make an informed choice about the foods
they eat and understand that some people may choose to avoid foods
containing TFAs."

ABC News reported on Wednesday, Jan 30, that Katie Simpson of San
Diego, Calif. had filed a class-action suit against Nestle's pizza
brands.  Ms. Simpson's attorney, Greg Watson told "Good Morning
America" that "Katie has two young children and she likes to make
pizza for them, and all kids love pizza. It shouldn't have a toxic
food additive that's been banned all around the world."

It is important for consumers to be educated and carefully read
food labels before purchasing products which they believe will
contain ingredients they think may be harmful to their health,
including those with nut and gluten allergies.  The American Heart
Association offers an easy guide to reading food labels.


NESTLE WATERS: Judge Tosses $50-Mil. Late Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge tossed a $50 million putative class action on
Jan. 31 that accused Nestle Waters North America Inc. of ripping
off delivery customers by levying exorbitant late fees, finding
the complaint relied on conclusory allegations that failed to show
how the fees were unenforceable.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martini found that plaintiff Ciser
Computer Consulting lacked standing to bring the suit.


NETFLIX INC: Wants Consolidated Securities Litigation Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. is asking the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to stay a consolidated shareholder
litigation, according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012, and February 29, 2012, respectively,
alleging substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated and the Court has selected lead plaintiffs.  Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 26, 2012.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between October 20, 2010, and
October 24, 2011.  The complaint alleges among other things, that
the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business practices and violated accounting
rules concerning segment reporting, which led to artificially
inflated stock prices.

On February 4, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint and a motion to stay the litigation.
Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.

Netflix Inc. is an Internet subscription service for TV shows and
movies.  Its subscribers can watch TV shows and movies, streamed
over the Internet to their TVs, computers and mobile devices.  In
the U.S., its subscribers can receive standard definition DVDs,
and their high definition successor, Blu-ray discs, delivered to
their homes.


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its February 1,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it signed a memorandum of understanding to settle
a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of California County of San Diego (the "Court") by Daniele
Riganello, an alleged stockholder of Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Somaxon") (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-201200087821-CU-
SLCTL).  A second purported class action was also filed in the
Court by another alleged stockholder of Somaxon (Wasserstrom vs.
Somaxon, et al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL).  Both plaintiffs
filed amended complaints on January 18, 2013.  The lawsuits have
since been consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case
No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  The operative complaint names as
defendants Somaxon,  Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
("Pernix"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary Pernix
Acquisition Corp. I, as well as each of the members of Somaxon's
board of directors (the "Individual Defendants").  It alleges,
among other things, that (i) the Individual Defendants have
breached fiduciary duties they assertedly owed to Somaxon's
stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction described
in the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Pernix, Pernix
Acquisition Corp. I and Somaxon, dated as of December 10, 2012
(the "Merger Agreement"); (ii) Somaxon and Pernix have aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the merger
consideration is unfair and inadequate; and (iv) the disclosures
regarding the proposed transaction in the Registration Statement
on Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 7, 2013 (as may be amended, the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), were inadequate.

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants in
such litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
to settle such litigation.  Subject to the completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, as well as
court approval and further definitive documentation in a
stipulation of settlement, the MOU resolves the claims brought in
the such litigation and provides a release and settlement by the
purported class of Somaxon's stockholders of all claims against
the defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with
the Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures related
thereto.  The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the MOU, Pernix and Somaxon
have agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed transaction in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus expected to
be mailed to Somaxon's stockholders on or about February 8, 2013.
Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs in
such litigation intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount to be approved or determined by the court.
This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to
be paid in the merger or the timing of the special meeting of
Somaxon's stockholders.

The Company says nothing in its Current Report on Form 8-K, the
MOU or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission
of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures
set forth herein or added to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
pursuant to the MOU.

Pernix undertakes no duty or obligation to publicly update or
revise the information contained in its Current Report on Form 8-
K.


PFIZER: Faces Class Action Over Zoloft Deceptive Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
A Watsonville, California woman has filed a consumer fraud class
action lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
related to the company's antidepressant Zoloft.  The lawsuit
alleges Pfizer deceptively marketed Zoloft as a highly effective
treatment for depression, knowing that the drug's effectiveness
was, at best, virtually indistinguishable from that of a sugar
pill.   The lawsuit was filed by Baum Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman
and Pendley Baudin & Coffin on behalf of the Plaintiff, Laura A.
Plumlee, and consumers nationwide and in California.  The class
action lawsuit, 13-CV-00414-PSG, is before Magistrate Judge Paul
Singh Grewal.

The Complaint alleges that:

"Most of the early Zoloft efficacy studies proved to be negative,
failed, or were neutral.  In the majority of the efficacy studies,
there was no significant difference between Zoloft and placebo in
relieving depression.  In some studies, placebo actually
outperformed Zoloft in treating depression."

"Pfizer was fully aware of Zoloft's true efficacy (or lack
thereof) as documented in internal company documents discussed in
the Complaint.

"Despite its full knowledge of Zoloft's less-than-stellar
effectiveness, Pfizer proceeded to falsely market Zoloft as a
highly beneficial treatment for depression.

"Pfizer deliberately crafted its drug label to mislead consumers
and prescribing healthcare professionals into believing that
Zoloft is more effective at treating depression than it actually
is.

"Pfizer knew that it could turn a profit by convincing consumers
and prescribing healthcare professionals that Zoloft was very
effective at treating depression.  This was accomplished not only
through its misleading drug label, but through a comprehensive
scheme of selective publication of clinical trial data,
ghostwriting positive manuscripts about the efficacy of Zoloft,
paying prominent physicians (known as Key Opinion Leader or
"KOLS") to tout the efficacy and safety of Zoloft, and misleading
advertising on television and in magazines.

"As a result of its extensive and deceptive marketing efforts,
Pfizer reaped tens of billions of dollars in profits from its
sales of Zoloft.

"Since Zoloft's launch in 1991, Zoloft sales have generated over
$30 billion in revenue for Pfizer.  Prior to Zoloft's patent
expiration in 2007, which resulted in a proliferation of less
expensive generic versions of the drug, Zoloft's annual sales were
over $3 billion annually.  Since its patent expired, Zoloft sales
have continued to generate over $500 million in revenue each year.
Currently, over 20 million prescriptions of Zoloft and generic
sertraline are filled annually."

The Plaintiff, Laura A. Plumlee is a housewife with two teenage
children.  According to the Complaint, she began taking Zoloft in
2005 for depression.  Because Zoloft was not effective at treating
her depression, her dosage was repeatedly increased.  Mrs. Plumlee
stated:

"I was led to believe this medication was very effective at
treating depression.  What I got was three years of false hopes
with side effects.  I kept telling my doctor that I didn't think
Zoloft was helping me, but he kept telling me I was wrong.  I feel
duped and betrayed by Pfizer.  Through my lawsuit, I hope to make
Pfizer pay back the money it took from me and others who bought
Zoloft.  I think that ought to give Pfizer and other drug
companies some incentive to stop deceiving the public.  Pfizer
should not be allowed to keep money it made by dishonest means."

Michael L. Baum, a senior partner at Baum Hedlund Aristei &
Goldman, commented: "People think that, if a drug has been
approved by the FDA, it must be okay.  But, as the recent spate of
FDA whistleblower cases have shown, that's not necessarily the
case."  For example, Dr. David B. Ross, a former FDA medical
reviewer who blew the whistle on the antibiotic Ketek, explained
in an interview that the drug industry "has become FDA's client.
People at FDA know that they have to be careful about upsetting
industry . . . even if a product doesn't work . . . there is
pressure on managers that gets transmitted down to reviewers to
find some way of approving it."

According to Mr. Baum, "Manufacturers like Pfizer know this and
have taken advantage of it, despite the fact that their primary
responsibility is to properly inform doctors and patients about
the benefits and risks of the drugs they market.  Millions of
consumers in the United States spent billions of dollars for a
drug whose benefits were likely clinically insignificant while
exposing them to some very serious risks."

One of the experts in the case, Dr. Irving Kirsch, a director of
the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School (and
recently featured in a 60 Minutes segment titled "Treating
Depression: Is there a placebo effect?") noted in his book "The
Emperor's New Drugs":

"Drug companies knew how small the effect of their medications
were compared to placebos, and so did the FDA and other regulatory
agencies.  The companies found various ways to make the data seem
more favorable to their products . . . My colleagues and I hadn't
really discovered anything new.  We had merely revealed their
'dirty little secret'."

Concerning the Zoloft efficacy class action just filed, Dr. Kirsch
stated:

"In the studies Pfizer conducted to test Zoloft's efficacy for
treating depression, a majority showed no significant difference
between Zoloft and placebo.  What is also troubling is that in the
two studies where Zoloft appeared to perform better than placebo,
the difference was so small that it is unlikely to be of any
meaningful clinical benefit to the patient.  My analyses of the
research conducted by Pfizer demonstrates that the perceived
benefit patients feel they get from Zoloft is primarily due to the
placebo effect -- the belief or hope that they are taking an
effective medication."


POWERCOR: Judge Okays Pomborneit Bushfire Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a judge has approved
a settlement in a class action against electricity distributor
Powercor over a Black Saturday bushfire in southwest Victoria.

The February 2009 fire in the Pomborneit area consumed about
1300ha of farmland, including a large part of a dairy farm owned
by the lead plaintiff in the class action, Terry Place.

In December, the parties reached a settlement estimated to be
worth AUD10 million.

Justice David Beach on Feb. 1 approved the settlement, saying it
was fair.

"Having considered all of the evidence led and tendered in this
proceeding, I accept that there was only a relatively small risk
of the plaintiff failing to establish a cause of action against
the defendant," Justice Beach said in a judgment handed down in
Warrnambool.

He said he had "no doubt that the settlement agreement is fair and
reasonable as between the parties."

Under the settlement, Powercor will pay victims 100 per cent of
the losses they incurred as a result of the bushfire on
February 7, 2009.

They will be reimbursed the full value of the property damaged,
based on what it was worth on the day the fire hit.

Powercor will maintain its denial of legal liability for the fire.

Mr. Place lost fencing and a large hay shed in the fire.

About 30 residents joined the class action.


R-KANE PRODUCTS: Recalls Z Pro High Protein Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------
R-Kane Products, Inc., in Pennsauken, New Jersey, is recalling all
outstanding supplies of its Z PRO HIGH PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT, because
it contains soy and milk, allergens which are not declared on the
labels of individual packets of the product.  The product is
distributed in boxes containing 24 packets.  The outer box
declares the presence of these allergens.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to soy or milk run the risk of a
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Z PRO HIGH PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT was distributed nationwide between
January 1, 2006, and January 24, 2013, to bariatric centers and
bariatric physicians who dispense the product to patients who have
undergone bariatric surgery.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated after an FDA inspection noted that these
allergens were not disclosed on the inner packets of the product.
Product shipped after January 24, 2013, contains the allergen
disclosure on both the outer box packaging and the individual
inner packets of the product.

Additional information on what consumers should do with the
product maybe be obtained by calling Robert Kaskey, 1-856-663-0644
(Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).


SPI ELECTRICITY: March 22 Class Action Registration Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC reports that victims of the Kilmore East bushfire on Black
Saturday have been warned that time is running out to register for
a class action in the Supreme Court.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn says 7,500 people have joined the
action, but there could be more.

After delays over finding a suitable courtroom, the trial is due
to start on March 4.

Maurice Blackburn associate Rory Walsh says people have previously
been told they did not need to actively participate, but things
have changed.

He says registering will not cost anything, but the consequences
of not registering are serious.

"If the class action is successful and you haven't registered your
claim by 4:00 p.m. on March 22 this year, you'll not be able
recover compensation in the class action for any personal injury
losses you've suffered," he said.

"Furthermore if the case is resolved via a settlement and you've
suffered uninsured property losses, registering with the class
action is the only avenue you have to recover your losses."


SYNGENTA CROP: 25 Tri-State Towns Get Atrazine Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
WGEM reports that more than 25 Tri-State towns are getting a big
payday in a class action lawsuit settlement over drinking water.

The company Syngenta has been ordered to pay $105 million to
communities across the U.S. to help reimburse the costs of
removing a weed killer from their water systems.

The case was originally filed in Illinois in 2004, but expanded to
other states in 2010.

About 37 million people live in the areas served by the claimants
in this case with 1,085 cities and towns across America filing
settlement claims.

Macomb City Administrator Dean Torreson says his city got $43,429
which will go into the water fund.  Mr. Torreson says while the
water tested positive for the chemical atrazine, at no time was
the water unsafe to drink.

Below is a full list of communities getting a check as part of the
settlement:

Macon County PWSD #1, Missouri
Thomas Hill PWSD #1, Missouri
Monroe County PWSD #2, Missouri
Cannon PWSD #1, Missouri.
City of Paris, Missouri, Missouri
Shelby County PWSD #1, Missouri
Knox County PWSD #1, Missouri
Lewis County PWSD #1, Missouri
Marion County PWSD #1, Missouri
City of Monroe City, Missouri
City of Vandalia, Missouri
City of Bowling Green, Missouri
City of Pittsfield, Illinois
City of Carthage, Illinois
City of Wyaconda, Missouri
City of La Belle, Missouri
City of Lewistown, Missouri
City of Shelbyville, Missouri
City of Shelbina, Missouri
City of Perry, Missouri.
City of New London, Missouri
City of Baring, Missouri
City of Curryville, Missouri
City of Louisiana, Missouri
City of La Harpe, Illinois
City of Macomb, Illinois


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Defends Two Securities Suits in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is defending two securities class
action lawsuits in Kentucky, according to the Company's
February 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 20 and 25, 2012, two lawsuits were filed against the
Company and two named executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly
on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's stock between January 25, 2012, and June 5, 2012.  The
lawsuits are captioned (i) Norfolk County Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and
Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012, and (ii) Arthur Benning,
Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and
Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012.  The complaints assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, alleging, among other things, false and misleading
statements and concealment of material information concerning the
Company's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per
diluted share and related financial performance for the Company's
2012 fiscal year 2012.  The plaintiffs seek damages, interest,
costs, attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief.

The Company strongly believes that the shareholder lawsuits lack
merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously.  The
outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the
Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to
these matters, it cannot currently predict the manner and timing
of the resolution of the lawsuits, an estimate of a range of
losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an
adverse verdict in these lawsuits, or whether the Company's
applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for
these claims.  Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer and
distributor of premium mattresses and pillows, which it sells in
approximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR(R) and Tempur-Pedic(R)
brands.  The Company is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Has Yet to Submit Settlement Documentations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. has yet to submit definitive
documentations with respect to its settlement of a consolidated
merger-related lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company's
February 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") to
acquire Sealy Corporation ("Sealy"), by merging Sealy with a
newly-formed subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger")
(collectively, the "Sealy Acquisition").  Sealy owns some of the
most recognized bedding brands in the world, and manufactures and
markets a broad range of mattresses and foundations that appeal to
a broad range of consumers under the Sealy(R), Sealy
Posturepedic(R), Sealy Embody(TM), Optimum(TM) by Sealy
Posturepedic(R), Stearns & Foster(R), and Bassett(R) brands.  In
addition to traditional innerspring mattresses, Sealy leverages
its brand portfolio to also manufacture and market in the U.S. and
internationally specialty (non-innerspring) latex and viscoelastic
bedding products. Sealy is also a leading global brand with top
market positions in Canada, Mexico and Argentina.  Sealy operates
through wholly-owned subsidiaries in the U.S., Canada, Mexico,
Puerto Rico, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile and through joint
ventures and licensee partners in other international markets.

The Company is aware of six purported class action lawsuits
relating to the Merger with Sealy, one in North Carolina state
court and five in the Delaware Court of Chancery, filed by
purported stockholders of Sealy against Sealy, Sealy's directors,
the Company and Silver Lightning Merger Company, a subsidiary of
the Company (the "Merger Sub").  The six lawsuits are:

   (1) Benjamin B. Clarke, Individually and On Behalf of All
       Others Similarly Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard
       W. Roedel, John B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B.
       Nelson, Gary E. Morin, James W. Johnson, Deborah G.
       Ellinger, Simon E. Brown, Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic
       International Inc. and Silver Lightning Merger Company,
       filed October 2, 2012;

   (2) Robert A. Justewicz, Individually and On Behalf of All
       Others Similarly Situated v. Sealy Corporation, Lawrence
       J. Rogers, Paul J. Norris, James W. Johnson, Simon E.
       Brown, Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson, Richard W. Roedel,
       Deborah G. Ellinger, John B. Replogle, Silver Lightning
       Merger Company and Tempur-Pedic International Inc., filed
       October 3, 2012;

   (3) Deno Singh, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
       Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W. Roedel, John B.
       Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson, Gary E. Morin,
       James W. Johnston, Deborah G. Ellinger, Simon E. Brown,
       Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic International Inc. and
       Silver Lightning Merger Company, filed October 15, 2012;

   (4) Jay M. Plourde, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
       Similarly Situated v. Sealy Corporation, Lawrence J.
       Rogers, Paul Norris, James W. Johnston, Simon E. Brown,
       Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson, Richard Roedel, Deborah G.
       Ellinger, John B. Replogel, Tempur-Pedic International
       Inc., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and Silver
       Lightning Merger Company, filed October 15, 2012;

   (5) Keith Gamble, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
       Similarly Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W.
       Roedel, John B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson,
       Gary E. Morin, James W. Johnston, Deborah G. Ellinger,
       Simon E. Brown, Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic
       International Inc. and Silver Lightning Merger Company,
       filed October 16, 2012; and

   (6) Curtis Nall, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
       Situated Shareholders of Sealy Corporation v. Lawrence C.
       Rogers, James W. Johnston, Simon E. Brown, Gary E. Morin,
       Dean B. Nelson, Richard Roedel, Deborah G. Ellinger, John
       B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Sealy Corporation,
       Tempur-Pedic, International Inc., KKR Millennium GP LLC,
       KKR & Co. L.P., and Silver Lightning Merger Company, filed
       October 17, 2012.

Justewicz v. Sealy Corp., et al. ("North Carolina Action") was
filed on October 3, 2012, in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division in North Carolina ("North Carolina
Court").  On November 13, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery
consolidated all five Delaware actions into a single action, which
is now styled as In re Sealy Corporation Shareholder Litigation
("Delaware Action").  Plaintiff in the North Carolina Action and
plaintiffs in the Delaware Action allege, among other things, that
the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to Sealy's
stockholders and that Sealy, the Company and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the Sealy directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
The complaints also claim that the consideration to be paid in the
Merger to Sealy stockholders (the "Merger Consideration") is
inadequate, that the Merger Agreement contains unfair deal
protection provisions, that Sealy's directors are subject to
conflicts of interests, and that the preliminary information
statement filed by Sealy with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2012, omits material information
concerning the negotiation process leading to the proposed
transaction and the valuation of Sealy.

On October 12, 2012, plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
brought a Motion for Expedited Discovery and for a Hearing and
Briefing Schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.  On October 24, 2012, defendants in the North Carolina
Action brought a Motion to Stay the North Carolina Action in favor
of the Delaware Action.  On November 7, 2012, the North Carolina
Action plaintiff amended his complaint to add allegations claiming
that the preliminary information statement filed by Sealy on
October 30, 2012, did not provide sufficient information.
Following briefing and a hearing on November 8, 2012, the North
Carolina Court stayed the North Carolina Action.  On November 19,
2012, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a consolidated
amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings, and a
motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
entirely without merit.

On January 22, 2013, solely to avoid the burden, expense and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the Delaware Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an
agreement-in-principle providing for a settlement of the Delaware
Action (the "Proposed Settlement").  In connection with the
Proposed Settlement, Sealy agreed to include certain supplemental
disclosures in the information statement to be sent to Sealy
stockholders.  The Proposed Settlement provides for the release of
all claims by Sealy stockholders concerning the Merger Agreement,
the Merger, and the disclosures made in connection with the
Merger, including all claims that were asserted or could have been
asserted in the Delaware Action and the North Carolina Action.
The Proposed Settlement does not provide for the payment of any
additional monetary consideration to Sealy stockholders and the
Proposed Settlement does not affect the rights of any Sealy
stockholder to seek appraisal pursuant to Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.  The Proposed Settlement is
subject to definitive documentation and approval by the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

The outcome of the litigation is uncertain, however, and although
the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect
to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner
and timing of the resolution of the Merger Lawsuits, an estimate
of a range or losses or any minimum loss that could result in the
event of an adverse verdict in these lawsuits, or whether the
Company's or Sealy's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims.  Accordingly, the Company
can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer and
distributor of premium mattresses and pillows, which it sells in
approximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR(R) and Tempur-Pedic(R)
brands.  The Company is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.


TICKETMASTER: Canadians Get Checks in TicketsNow Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Updated News reports that Canadians who bought tickets for
concerts or other events on Ticketmaster's TicketsNow resale site
are getting checks in the mail as a result of a class action
lawsuit.

A court order in 2012 demanded Ticketmaster pay an C$850,000
settlement.

In 2009, lawyers in four provinces -- Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and
Manitoba -- filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers
who had bought tickets on the TicketsNow site.

The suit claimed Ticketmaster diverted tickets to popular events
away from its lower-priced portal to its ticket brokering Web site
TicketsNow, which demanded a premium price for the same tickets.

The settlement, completed late last year, provides C$36, less some
deductions for legal costs, for each ticket bought on the site
over a period of two to five years, depending where consumers
bought their tickets.

Canadians who are receiving refunds bought tickets:

    * Between Feb. 19, 2006 and Sept. 25, 2012, for events in
Quebec.

    * Between Feb. 9, 2007 and Sept. 25, 2012, for events in
Ontario.

    * Between Feb. 17, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2009, for events in
Alberta.

    * Between Feb. 17, 2007 and Sept. 25, 2012, for events in
Manitoba.

Cheques were mailed between Dec. 28, 2012 and Jan. 25 of this
year.  But anyone who has moved since buying a TicketsNow ticket
has to get their new address to the settlement agency.

In addition, Ontario and Manitoba have enacted anti-scalping
legislation that makes it illegal to divert regularly priced
tickets to a site that demands a premium price.


TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit commenced by R.
Lynn Thompson in Oklahoma, according to the Company's February 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
December 29, 2012.

On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.
Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma by three property owners
on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake O' the
Cherokees.  Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc. also are
defendants.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants' operations
diminished the water quality in the lake thereby interfering with
the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties.  The
plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
While the District Court certified a class, on October 4, 2005,
the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma reversed,
holding the plaintiffs' claims were not suitable for disposition
as a class action.  This decision was upheld by the Oklahoma
Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the District Court with
instructions that the matter proceed only on behalf of the three
named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution
and compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount in
excess of $10,000.  The Company and the other defendants have
denied liability and asserted various defenses.  The defendants
have requested a trial date, but the court has not yet scheduled
the matter for trial.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Class Suits v. Units Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action lawsuit was
filed in San Antonio, Texas, against Vanguard Health Systems,
Inc.'s Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas, and
two other large hospital systems in San Antonio.  In the
complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system
defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified
San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the
San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated
the federal antitrust laws.  The complaint alleges two separate
claims.  The first count asserts that the defendant hospitals
violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which prohibits
agreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring
to depress nurses' compensation.  The second count alleges that
the defendant hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys
for the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered
nurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on
their compensation.  The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs
filed the complaint is alleged to comprise all registered nurses
employed by the defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount
pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
From 2006 through April 2008, the Company and the plaintiffs
worked on producing documents to each other relating to, and
supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, solely the
issue of whether the court will certify a class in this lawsuit,
the court having bifurcated the class and merit issues.  In April
2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Company believes
that the allegations contained within this putative class action
lawsuit are without merit, and the Company has vigorously worked
to defeat class certification.  If a class is certified, the
Company will continue to defend vigorously against the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,
Albany, New York, and Memphis, Tennessee, against some of the
hospitals or hospital systems in those cities (none of such
hospitals or hospital systems being owned by the Company).  The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these cases
said in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and in December 2006 they brought a substantially
similar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals or hospital
systems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area, one of which
was The Detroit Medical Center ("DMC), a Company subsidiary.
Since representatives of the Service Employees International Union
("SEIU") joined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of
all four complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in
the media, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in these
actions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt to
organize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio and
Detroit.  The registered nurses in the Company's hospitals in San
Antonio and Detroit are currently not members of any union. In the
lawsuit in Detroit against DMC, the court did not bifurcate class
and merits issues.  On March 22, 2012, the judge issued an opinion
and order granting in part and denying in part the defendants'
motions for summary judgment.  The defendants' motions were
granted as to the count of the complaint alleging wage fixing by
defendants, but were denied as to the count alleging that the
defendants' sharing of wage information allegedly resulted in the
suppression of nurse wages.  The opinion, however, did not address
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and did not address
defendants' challenge to the opinion of plaintiffs' expert, but
specifically reserved ruling on those matters for a later date.

If the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and/or Detroit lawsuits (1)
are successful in obtaining class certification and (2) are able
to prove both liability and substantial damages, which are then
trebled under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, such a result could
materially affect the Company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.  However, in the opinion of management, the
ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.

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

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. is an investor-owned health care
company whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate
hospitals and related health care businesses in urban and suburban
areas.  The Company also owns managed health plans in Chicago,
Illinois, Harlingen, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, and two surgery
centers in Orange County, California.


XO HOLDINGS: Icahn Fails to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles E. Ramos of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, denied the motion for summary judgment
filed by Carl C. Icahn and other defendants, seeking dismissal of
a class action lawsuit commenced by certain minority shareholders
of XO Holdings Inc.

The Court, however, agreed to dismiss certain counts in the
complaint.

The lawsuit arises out of two transactions that ultimately
permitted Carl Icahn et al. to re-acquire 100% of XO's shares and
the use of its net operating losses and separate return limitation
year net operating losses -- SRLY-NOLs -- for allegedly inadequate
consideration.  The Plaintiffs allege that Icahn et al. breached
their fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders in consummating
two self-dealing transactions, a 2008 super-sized preferred rights
offering and a 2011 cash-out merger.

XO was a competitive telecommunications services provider that
delivered an array of telecommunications services to the
telecommunications provider, business, and government markets. A
majority of XO's clients connected to XO's national network
through its fiber optic network, known as Wireline.

In June 2002, XO filed for Chapter 11 protection, and its Plan of
Reorganization was confirmed in November 2002.  Icahn converted
debt acquired during the bankruptcy proceedings into 83% of XO's
new equity and 85% of XO's new debt.

The Plaintiffs were minority shareholders of XO.

Pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, usage of the NOLs required
that Icahn hold at least 80% of XO's equity and voting power and
the usage of the SRLY-NOLs required that Icahn hold 100% of XO's
equity and voting power.

Judge Ramos said the Plaintiffs' allegations raise numerous
triable issues of fact with respect to the conduct of the special
committees in the Icahn-owned companies, and as to the fairness of
the terms of the Transactions.

The Court directed the parties to schedule a pretrial conference
with the Clerk of Part 53 to be held no later than Feb. 14, 2013.

The lawsuit is styled, YOULU ZHENG AND DONALD J. HILLENMEYER ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. CARL C. ICAHN, CARL J. GRIVNER, ADAM DELL, FREDRIK
GRADIN, VINCENT INTRIERI, KEITH MEISTER, ROBERT KNAUSS, DAVID S.
SCHECTER, PETER SHEA, HAROLD FIRST, DANIEL A. NINIVAGGI, ACF
INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION, ARNOS CORPORATION, HIGH RIVER
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, STARFIRE HOLDING CORPORATION, ARNOS SUB
CORP., XO MERGER CORP., BARBERRY CORPORATION, AND XO HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendants. R2 INVESTMENTS, LDC, Plaintiff, CARL C. ICAHN,
CARL J. GRIVNER, ADAM DELL, FREDRIK GRADIN, VINCENT INTRIERI,
KEITH MEISTER, ROBERT KNAUSS, DAVID S. SCHECTER, PETER SHEA,
HAROLD FIRST, DANIEL A. NINIVAGGI, ACF INDUSTRIES HOLDING
CORPORATION, ARNOS CORPORATION, HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
STARFIRE HOLDING CORPORATION, ARNOS SUB CORP., XO MERGER CORP.,
BARBERRY CORPORATION, AND XO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants; and

R2 INVESTMENTS, LDC, Plaintiff, v. CARL C. ICAHN, CARL J. GRIVNER,
ADAM DELL, FREDRIK GRADIN, VINCENT INTRIERI, KEITH MEISTER, ROBERT
KNAUSS, DAVID S. SCHECTER, PETER SHEA, HAROLD FIRST, DANIEL A.
NINIVAGGI, ACF INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION, ARNOS CORPORATION,
HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, STARFIRE HOLDING CORPORATION,
ARNOS SUB CORP., XO MERGER CORP., BARBERRY CORPORATION, AND XO
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, 650499/10 (N.Y.).

A copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2013 decision is available at
http://is.gd/z7J8M8from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Zheng/Class is represented by:

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com

R2 is represented by:

          Jeff Ross, Esq.
          ROSS & ORENSTEIN LLC
          222 South Ninth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: jross@rossbizlaw.com

Robert R. Viducich, Esq., 110 Wall Street New York, NY 10005,
argues for all Defendants except Dell, Gradin, and Knauss.

Christopher L. Gadoury, Esq. -- cgadoury@bafirm.com -- at Berg &
Androphy, 3704 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002, argues for the
Defendants.


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *