---

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

              Monday, March 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 54

                             Headlines



AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Ruling to Further Curtail Class Actions
ANGLO AMERICAN: To Defend Gold Miners' Silicosis Class Action
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Norton Rose Comments on Class Action Denial
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
BLUE CROSS: Joiner Superior Services Files Antitrust Class Action

COMMONWEALTH REIT: Awaits Decisions in "Young" Securities Suit
DIREXION FINANCIAL: May 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GPT: To Defend AUD100-Million Investor Class Action
HECLA MINING: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Idaho
HOT SPRINGS: Recalls 6,120 Pounds of Chicken Sausage Products

HOWARD INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Approval of Discrimination Suit Deal
IMPO INT'L: Recalls 13,500 White House Black Market Women's Shoes
INDIANA: Vehicles Bureau Overcharged Driver's Licenses, Suit Says
L'OCCITANE INC: Privacy Breach Suit Goes Back to Los Angeles Court
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Defends Merger Suits in New York & Delaware

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: To Appeal Cert. Order in Debt Collection Suit
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
LINKEDIN CORP: Judge Dismisses $5-Mil. Data Breach Class Action
M/I HOMES: To Join Global Deal to Settle Defective Drywall Suits
MICHAELS STORES: Customer ZIP Code Class Action Can Proceed

NSP-WISCONSIN: Appeal From 2nd "Comer" Suit's Dismissal Pending
NUESKE'S APPLEWOOD: FSIS Lists Stores With Recalled Products
PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "NECA-IBEW" Suit
PLAINS EXPLORATION: Faces Class Suit Related to McMoRan Merger
PUBLIC SERVICE: Appeal From "Comer II" Suit Dismissal Pending

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Attendants Seek to Renew Dismissed Appeal
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
SOFT AIR: Recalls 2,400 Swiss Arms Air Rifles Due to Injury Risk
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Appeal in "Comer II" Suit Remains Pending
SUNPOWER CORP: Awaits Initial Approval of $19.7-Mil. Settlement

TANGOE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Corrects Class Action Notice

* Atlanta-Area Banks Face ADA ATM Accessibility Class Action
* Growing Online Privacy Concerns Spur Class Actions


                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Ruling to Further Curtail Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bobelian, writing for Forbes, reports that the Supreme
Court recently heard a case that could add new limitations on
class actions, potentially adding to a trend that has gained
momentum within the judicial body in recent years.

The case pitted American Express against various merchants, which
asked the Court to strike down a provision in their contracts with
the credit card giant forbidding them from forming class actions.
The contractual clause at the center of the dispute required the
merchants to settle their disputes -- in this case, antitrust
claims -- individually through arbitration.

The merchants argued that it was cost-prohibitive for them to file
their claims individually.  The hundreds of thousands of dollars
necessary for hiring the experts needed to make the complex
calculations typical in antitrust cases, they told the Court, only
made sense on a collective level.  While one merchant could not
afford to bring an antitrust case, a group of them could do so,
making it an ideal class action.

The oral arguments meandered from topic to topic as the justices
showed little enthusiasm for the merchants' position.

Arguing on behalf of the merchants, Paul Clement, who appeared
before the justices in the biggest case of last year involving the
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, reminded the
justices that a person didn't give up the rights granted to her
under federal law by partaking in arbitration -- a concept known
as the vindication of rights doctrine.

None of the justices disagreed with the principle.  They just
wondered whether the facts in the case threatened these rights.

Mr. Clement's counterpart, Michael Kellogg, reiterated several
times that the agreements with his client, American Express, did
not forbid the claimants from pooling their resources in bringing
individual cases, it only prevented them from bringing a class
action.

Here too, the justices were unsure about the factual record
established in the lower court proceedings.  Did a confidentiality
provision in the agreements prevent the merchants from sharing
information and resources as Clement claimed?  Or were they
allowed to pool their resources in a limited but meaningful way as
Kellogg argued?  At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts asked,
"how does that work again?"

Later in the proceeding, Justice Antonin Scalia mused over the
exact question the Court was asked to answer in the appeal.

The oral argument came on the heels of the Court's recent
decisions curbing class actions.  In a 2011 decision, AT&T v.
Concepcion, the Court allowed companies to evade class actions by
directing their contractual partners into individual arbitration
proceedings.

The ruling had an immediate impact.  More than 75 class actions
were stopped or significantly hampered within its first year,
according to Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization.
Plus, companies like Microsoft updated their agreements with
consumers in response to the decision.  Concepcion will likely
weigh heavily on the Court's thinking in the American Express
case.

Besides the Concepcion case, the Court also ruled in favor of Wal-
Mart in 2011, bringing to an end what was the largest employee
class action in the nation's history.  Both rulings have
supplemented Congressional attempts to curb class actions during
the past two decades.


ANGLO AMERICAN: To Defend Gold Miners' Silicosis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that lawyers representing gold miners suffering
from the deadly lung disease silicosis said on March 7 they had
filed a class action lawsuit application against the South African
arm of global mining giant Anglo American.

The application by the legal groups from South Africa and Britain
is the latest in several class action suits being lined up against
South Africa's once mighty gold mining industry.

It is likely to be several months before a judge rules whether the
case can proceed.

Anglo American, which switched its headquarters from Johannesburg
to London in 1999, no longer has gold mines in South Africa but
the lawyers said its Johannesburg-based unit still had assets of
around $15 billion.

The lawyers include London's Leigh Day and South Africa's Legal
Resources Centre, a practice focusing on human rights.  They
allege that Anglo American South Africa was the parent company of
11 gold mines up until 1998 and that it "negligently controlled
and advised its mines with regard to prevention of dust exposure
and silicosis".

The class action application stems from a case first lodged in
2004 by 18 ex-gold miners who said they contracted silicosis at
Anglo's President Steyn mine in the Free State province.  At least
three of these men have since died.

The two sides agreed last year to go to arbitration, with a
hearing chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo now
expected early next year.

Anglo American said it needed to study the latest legal move, but
reiterated its previous denials of any wrong-doing.

"Overall Anglo American does not believe it is in any way liable
for the silicosis claims and will defend those actions,"
spokesperson Pranill Ramchander said.

The case is separate from a silicosis class action bid filed in
December against AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields and Harmony Gold
Mining Company and Anglo American South Africa on behalf of 17 000
former miners.

Silicosis, which has no known cure, is contracted by inhaling tiny
particles of silica dust from gold-bearing rocks over many years
underground without adequate protection.  The disease causes
shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest pains. It also
makes people highly susceptible to tuberculosis, which can kill.

Tens of thousands of black miners from South Africa and
neighboring countries are believed to have contracted silicosis
during the decades of white-minority rule, when their health and
safety were not priorities of the country's gold barons.  If
successful, the suits could cost the mining firms billions of
dollars, according to legal and industry experts.

The largest settlement to date by the mining industry in South
Africa was $100 million in 2003 in a case brought against an
asbestos company.

According to The Citizen, the application in in the High Court in
Johannesburg was being made on behalf of the miners by the LRC,
Garratt Mbuyisa Neale (GMN) attorneys, London-based firm Leigh Day
and Legal Aid SA.

Anglo American SA's potential silicosis liability was the most
substantial of any gold mining company, the LRC said.  The center
said lawyers had been working on litigation for nine years to
secure compensation for miners suffering from silicosis, an
occupational lung disease caused by exposure to dust.

"Eighteen claims relating to miners employed on AASA's President
Steyn mine in the Free State were filed in 2004," the LRC said.

"AASA was the head office parent company of the Anglo American
group comprising 11 gold mines until 1998.  It is alleged that
AASA negligently controlled and advised its mines with regard to
prevention of dust exposure and silicosis."

The President Steyn cases were in an advanced state of preparation
and expected to be heard over four months from February to June
2014.

The arbitration hearing would be heard by former Chief Justice
Sandile Ngcobo, and retired Appeal Court justices Ian Farlam and
Noel Hurt.

"The decision of these arbitrators is expected to be influential
in laying down the principles to be applied to the wider class of
cases," the LRC said.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Norton Rose Comments on Class Action Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randy C. Sutton, Esq. -- randy.sutton@nortonrose.com --  and Alex
Dimson, Esq. -- alex.dimson@nortonrose.com -- at Norton Rose
report that on February 21 2013 the Divisional Court of Ontario
upheld a landmark decision denying certification of a product
liability class action.

In the short oral decision in Martin v AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals, the Divisional Court of Ontario endorsed the
reasons and analysis of Justice Horkins, a lower court judge who
had denied certification of a proposed class action involving an
anti-psychotic drug.

In reaching this conclusion, the court disagreed with the
plaintiff's argument that the lower court judge had
inappropriately engaged in a detailed weighing of facts that was
not permissible at the certification stage.  Instead, the court
found that the judge had applied the correct legal test when she
concluded that the plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts
to support the allegations that the defendants had failed to warn
class members of risks associated with the drug and had been
negligent in the manufacture of it.

The court's decision is an important endorsement of the underlying
case, which is one of the few cases in which Canadian courts have
refused to certify product liability class actions.  The Martin v
AstraZeneca decision contains a variety of important rulings on
product labels, off-label use and the treatment of causation at
the certification stage, and the decision not to interfere with
the underlying decision is an important development in relation to
class actions in Canada.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc.'s subsidiary if awaiting a court decision on
its petition for leave to appeal a class certification order,
according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On May 18, 2010, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
BancorpSouth Bank, was named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  The
lawsuit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged
and the policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions.  The lawsuit also makes a claim under Arkansas'
consumer protection statute.  The plaintiff is seeking to recover
damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.  The case
was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  On May 4,
2012, the judge presiding over the multi-district litigation
entered an order certifying a class in this case.  The Bank has
filed a petition for leave to appeal the class certification
order, which, if granted, would provide the Bank with an immediate
right to appeal the class certification order.

At this stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.  There are significant uncertainties involved in any
purported class action litigation.  Although it is not possible to
predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion
that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position
or results of operations.  However, there can be no assurance that
an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations for a
given fiscal period.

                       About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth Inc. -- http://www.bancorpsouth.com/-- is a
financial holding company headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.
BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of BancorpSouth,
Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage, insurance, trust
and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, and an
insurance location in Illinois.


BLUE CROSS: Joiner Superior Services Files Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that Joiner Superior
Services Inc. launched a putative class action against Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Alabama and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association in Alabama federal court on March 7, claiming the
health insurers violated antitrust laws and monopolized the
state's health insurance market for small groups and individuals.
Joiner is a janitorial, landscaping and facilities management
services company that buys small group health insurance coverage
for its employees from BCBS-AL.


COMMONWEALTH REIT: Awaits Decisions in "Young" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CommonWealth REIT is awaiting court decisions in the class action
lawsuit filed by David Young in Massachusetts, according to the
Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 27, 2012, David Young filed a putative federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts titled Young v. Commonwealth REIT,
et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-12405-DJC, or the Action.  The Action is
brought on behalf of purchasers of the common shares of
CommonWealth REIT (the Company or CWH) between January 10, 2012,
and August 8, 2012, and asserts securities fraud claims against
CWH and certain of its officers, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Young's
complaint alleges generally that CWH violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading representations
about its business, operations and management.  The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages plus counsel fees and expenses.  CWH
believes that the Action is without merit, and intends to defend
against all claims asserted.

Accordingly, on January 22, 2013, CWH moved to dismiss the Action
on the grounds that the claims asserted (1) are subject to binding
arbitration under CWH's bylaws, and (2) fail to state a claim for
relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5.  CWH has also filed a request for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association.  The parties jointly have moved
the Court for a scheduling order pursuant to which CWH will have
no obligation to file an opening brief in support of its motion to
dismiss until such time as a lead plaintiff has been appointed by
the Court, lead counsel has been selected, and either a
consolidated complaint has been filed or Young's original
complaint has been designated as the operative complaint, all in
accordance with customary procedures for purported class action
litigation.

CommonWealth REIT -- http://www.cwhreit.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust formed in 1986 in Maryland and is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.  The Company's primary business is the
ownership and operation of real estate, primarily office buildings
located throughout the United States of America.


DIREXION FINANCIAL: May 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED SHARES OF THE DIREXION FINANCIAL BEAR 3X
SHARES (FAZ), DIREXION ENERGY BEAR 3X SHARES (ERY), DIREXION LARGE
CAP BEAR 3X SHARES (BGZ), OR THE DIREXION SMALL CAP BEAR 3X SHARES
(TZA) (EACH A "DIREXION FUND" AND COLLECTIVELY THE "DIREXION
FUNDS") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2008, THROUGH APRIL 9,
2009, INCLUSIVE COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed settlement has been
reached in the action captioned In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust,
No. 1-09-CV-8011 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.).  A hearing will be held on
May 10, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., before the Hon. Katherine B. Forrest
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Courtroom 15A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.  The purpose
of the hearing is for the Court to determine, among other things:
(1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in the
Action should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement;
(3) whether the plan for distributing the proceeds of the
settlement should be approved; (4) and whether the application of
Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses should be approved.

If you purchased Direxion Fund Shares from November 3, 2008
through April 9, 2009, inclusive, you must file a Proof of Claim
in writing no later than May 17, 2013, to participate in the
recovery.  If you did not hold your shares for longer than two
days, you are not entitled to share in the settlement proceeds.

If you believe you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the settlement, you must do so in writing no later than
April 19, 2013.  If the settlement is approved by the Court and
its judgment becomes final, you will be bound by the settlement
and the release of claims it includes unless you submit a request
to be excluded.

If you believe you may be a Class Member and wish to object to any
aspect of the settlement, the plan for allocating it, the request
by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or
otherwise request to be heard, you must submit a written objection
or request no later than April 19, 2013 in accordance with the
procedures described on the claims administration Web site,
http://www.DirexionFundSettlement.com

This is only a summary of matters regarding the litigation and the
settlement.  A detailed Notice describing the litigation, the
proposed settlement terms, and the rights of potential Class
Members, including procedures for participating, seeking exclusion
or objecting, has been mailed to Class Members whose contact
information is already known.  You may download the Notice from
the claims administration Web site --
http://www.DirexionFundSettlement.com-- which also has copies of
settlement documents and pleadings in the Action.

You may also obtain a copy of the more detailed Notice by
contacting the Claims Administrator by mail, e-mail, or telephone
as follows: In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 60176, Philadelphia, PA 19102-0176, (888) 969-0898.
http://www.DirexionFundSettlement.com

If you have any questions about the settlement, you may also
contact Class Counsel for Plaintiffs by mail, e-mail or telephone
as follows: Maja Lukic, Esquire, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, (212) 545-4600,
lukic@whafh.com.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: March 8, 2013


GPT: To Defend AUD100-Million Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Larry Schlesinger, writing for Smart Company, reports that a major
property industry legal stouch was set to begin in the Victorian
Federal Court on March 13 when commercial property giant GPT faces
off against a AUD100 million class action claim from disgruntled
investors.

The class action against GPT was filed on behalf of investors by
law firm and class action specialists Slater & Gordon in December
2011.  It relates to a July 7 2008 statement from GPT to the ASX
in which GPT downgraded its forecast earnings for the 2008
calendar year by 27%, and its distributions per security (DPS) by
30%.

Six months prior GPT had released its results for the 2007
calendar year and stated that its earnings would be "flat" (about
AUD600 million) for 2008.

"The class action against GPT alleges that it engaged in
misleading or deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous
disclosure obligations in relation to and following the release of
its 2007 Full Year Statutory Accounts," according to a statement
on the Slater & Gordon Web site.

Former GPT boss Nic Lyons and current head of corporate
development Michael O'Brien was set to be called to give evidence
this week.

In its 2012 report to shareholders released last week GPT says it
rejects the allegations and intends to defend the claim.

"GPT does not expect that any payment it could be required to make
would have a material adverse effect on the group's operation or
strategic objectives, or its financial strength," adds the group
in the report.

Current CEO Michael Cameron, who became CEO in May 2009, will not
be cross-examined.

GPT was one of the listed property trusts heavily impacted by the
GFC, losing more than AUD1 billion in value as its share price
plunged.

However, it has since recovered and is now regarded as one of the
strongest companies in the A-REITS sector.


HECLA MINING: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Idaho
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company is defending a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit pending in Idaho, according to the Company's
February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of its officers, one
of whom is also a director.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from
October 26, 2010, through and including January 11, 2012, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among
other things, damages and costs and expenses.   Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of
the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading
statements and allegedly omitted certain material information
related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine.  The
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors who purchased shares during that
time.  A second lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging
virtually identical claims.  These complaints have been
consolidated into a single case, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
has been appointed by the Court (Bricklayers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al.,
Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)), and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on October 16, 2012.

In January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail.  The
Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends
to defend them vigorously.

Hecla Mining Company -- http://www.hecla-mining.com/-- and its
subsidiaries have provided precious and base metals to the U.S.
economy and worldwide since 1891.  The Company discovers,
acquires, develops, produces and markets silver, gold, lead and
zinc.  Hecla Mining is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.


HOT SPRINGS: Recalls 6,120 Pounds of Chicken Sausage Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Springs Packing Co., Inc., a Hot Springs, Arkansas
establishment, is recalling approximately 6,120 pounds of chicken
polish sausage and chicken breakfast link products due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 30-lb. packages of "DOUBLE D INTERNATIONAL FOOD CO., INC.,
     4/1 CHICKEN POLISH SAUSAGE, REDUCED SODIUM" with lot code
     numbers of "05013A" or "05013B" stamped on the box.

   * 30-lb. packages of "DOUBLE D INTERNATIONAL FOOD CO., INC.,
     16/1 CHICKEN BREAKFAST LINK, REDUCED SODIUM" with a lot code
     number of "05013B" stamped on the box.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-10695" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
produced on February 19, 2013, and distributed to an institution
in Jackson, Michigan.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels
are available at: http://is.gd/BppMBp

The problem was discovered by Hot Springs Packing Co., Inc.,
through samples collected by the firm.  The affected product was
shipped prior to receiving the final results.

FSIS and the Company have not received reports of illnesses due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness
should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at
restaurants) to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media with questions regarding the
recall should contact the company's owner, John Stubblefield, at
(501) 767-2363.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone atm.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring
System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I


HOWARD INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Approval of Discrimination Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith Starrett granted final approval of a class
action settlement in COOK v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.

The Court certified the class as: All black and non-Hispanic white
persons who applied for a bargaining unit position at Howard
Industries' Laurel, Mississippi transformer facility between
January 1, 2003, and August 25, 2008, and were not hired.

The Settlement Agreement provides for two alternative forms of
compensation for Qualified Class Members. First, the Settlement
requires HI to establish a Settlement Fund of $1,300,000.  Sums
are to be paid from the Fund to Qualified Class Members in varying
amounts, depending upon whether a Class Member was eventually
hired by HI, qualified for employment, and/or is a named Plaintiff
(the Individual Settlement Benefit). Second, HI will offer 70
Qualified Class Members a bargaining unit position in its Laurel
transformer plant (the Employment Benefit).  The 70 bargaining
unit positions have been valued at $25,000 per position for
purposes of the Settlement Agreement.  Qualified Class Members
must initially choose between the Individual Settlement Benefit
and the Employment Benefit, but any Qualified Class Member not
selected for employment will receive an Individual Settlement
Benefit.

Class Counsel are awarded $457,500 to be paid by HI outside of the
Settlement Fund.

The case is VERONICA COOK, YOLANDA PHELPS, CHARLYN DOZIER, AND
SELEATHA MCGEE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant,
consolidated with VERONICA COOK, et al. Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD
INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Nos. 2:11cv41-KS-MTP, 2:11cv199-KS-
MTP, (S.D. Miss.).

A copy of the District Court's March 11, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/gBJs8Xfrom Leagle.com.


IMPO INT'L: Recalls 13,500 White House Black Market Women's Shoes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Impo International LLC, of Santa Maria, California, and
manufacturer, Baoding Footwear Co. Ltd., of China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 13,500 women's high-heel shoes.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The heels on the shoes can become unstable, posing a fall hazard.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Versailles model (570053826) and Lourdes
model (570053756) women's high-heeled shoes.  The shoes have four-
inch heels.  The Versailles is cream, black and brown-colored faux
snakeskin.  The Lourdes is black-colored faux snakeskin with a
white t-strap and trim.  The model name is stamped inside the
shoes and on the shoe box.  The model number is printed on the
shoe box.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/CUNlA5

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at White House Black Market stores nationwide or
online at whitehouseblackmarket.com from August 2012 through
October 2012 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop wearing the recalled shoes and
return them to a White House Black Market store to receive a
merchandise card for the full purchase price of the shoes, or
contact White House Black Market to receive instructions for
returning the shoes by mail.  White House Black Market may be
reached toll-free at (877) 948-2525 anytime, e-mail
customerservice@whitehouseblackmarket.com or online at
http://www.whitehouseblackmarket.com/and click on the Recall tab
at the bottom of the page.


INDIANA: Vehicles Bureau Overcharged Driver's Licenses, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports that the Indiana
Bureau of Motor Vehicles has "systematically overcharged" Hoosiers
for driver's licenses since 2007, collecting tens of millions of
dollars more than allowed under state law, according to a lawsuit
filed on March 7 in Marion Superior Court.

The class action complaint filed by Irwin B. Levin --
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- of the Indianapolis law firm Cohen &
Malad seeks a return of the alleged overcharges to drivers
statewide.

The lawsuit alleges the BMV charged drivers under the age of 75
from $4 to $7 more than Indiana law allows when they obtained or
renewed licenses.

"There is specific authority for how much they can charge and what
they did instead was, apparently, just made up a number," said
Mr. Levin.  "They just disregarded it."

Drivers 75 and older obtain a different type of license, Mr. Levin
said, and the suit does not challenge charges for those licenses.

Mr. Levin said he did not know how much Hoosiers were overcharged.

"The state is going to have to give us that," he said.  "But based
on our calculations, the number could be as high as $30 or $40
million."

Dennis Rosebrough, a BMV spokesman, would not say how the agency
sets license fees nor comment on the lawsuit.  "Our statement
means that we will not have the case tried in the media,"
Mr. Rosebrough wrote in an e-mail to The Star.  "Since the issue
is now in the courts, that becomes the venue for the discussion.
Anything said now potentially impacts the lawsuit."

Drivers are charged $21 for a six-year license, $19.50 for a five-
year license and $18 for a four-year license.  The suit says the
maximum the BMV is allowed to charge under Indiana law, however,
is $15 for a six-year license, $13.50 for a five-year license and
$14 for a four-year license.

In 2012, the suit alleges, 2.2 million Indiana driver's licenses
expired and required renewal.  If all those licenses were renewed,
and drivers were overcharged by the lowest amount alleged in the
suit, the BMV would have collected $8.8 million more than allowed
by law last year.

There are more than 4 million licensed drivers in the state and
many of them were charged "more than they are lawfully required to
pay in order to obtain their operator's license," the suit
contends.

The estimated amount Hoosiers have been overcharged is so high,
Levin explained, because a majority of drivers have renewed their
license at least one time since 2007, and some may have renewed
licenses twice.

Mr. Levin declined to elaborate on how he discovered the
overcharge issue.  It is not clear, he said, if any other state
agencies may be overcharging Hoosiers.

"We are involved in an active investigation of the fees in the
state," Mr. Levin said, "but this is the only one I am aware of at
this time."

If the suit is successful and the court certifies a class of
victims, Mr. Levin said, a notice of a possible refund will be
sent "to everyone who the state indicates has paid for a driver's
license for the past six year."

Darren Lundsford, 47, of Indianapolis, is among Hoosiers left
wondering if he was overcharged when renewing his license in July.
He paid the BMV $28, believing he was getting a six-year
operator's license and a six-year motorcycle endorsement.  He
discovered later that his license will expire in four years.

The $28 Mr. Lundsford paid would be appropriate, based on rates
posted on the BMV Web site for a four-year license and motorcycle
endorsement -- $18 for the license and $10 for the endorsement.

However, according to the lawsuit, state law caps the price the
BMV can charge for a four-year license at $14.

A few bucks may not be a lot, he acknowledged, but the total still
seems too high to Mr. Lundsford.

"I remember thinking at the time," he said." 'Man they are killing
us on the prices they're charging now.'"


L'OCCITANE INC: Privacy Breach Suit Goes Back to Los Angeles Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
TESSA OWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. L'OCCITANE, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. CV 12-09841 MMM (JCGx), (C.D. Cal. September
10, 2012), alleges claims for negligence, invasion of privacy,
unlawful intrusion and violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08 et seq.  Ms. Owen
alleges L'Occitane requests and records its consumers' personal
identifying information in connection with credit card
transactions at retail stores, then uses that information for
marketing and solicitation purposes unrelated to the transactions.

On November 16, 2012, L'Occitane removed the action, invoking the
court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  Ms. Owen filed a motion to remand to
which L'Occitane has opposed.

On March 8, 2013, District Judge Margaret M. Morrow granted Ms.
Owen's motion to remand saying the district court lacks
jurisdiction to hear the action.  Judge Morrow directs the clerk
of court to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court.

Ms. Owen's request for attorneys' fees is denied.

A copy of the District Court's March 8, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/LgUFetfrom Leagle.com.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Defends Merger Suits in New York & Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation is defending merger-related class
action lawsuits in New York and Delaware, according to the
Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In November 2012, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Jefferies Group, Inc., pursuant to which Jefferies
will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the
"Jefferies Merger").  In connection with the Merger, Jefferies'
current Chief Executive Officer and current Executive Committee
Chairman will become the new Chief Executive Officer and new
President, respectively, of the Company.

Seven putative class action lawsuits challenging the Jefferies
Merger have been filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of
Jefferies stockholders.  Three were filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York: (1) Howard Lasker IRA v. Jefferies Group,
Inc. et al. (Index No. 653924/2012), filed on November 14, 2012 in
New York County; (2) Lowinger v. Leucadia National Corp. et al.
(Index No. 653958/2012), filed on November 15, 2012 in New York
County; and (3) Jiannaras v. Jefferies Group, Inc., et al. (Index
No. 702866/2012), filed on November 16, 2012 in Queens County.
Four were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:
(1) Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Handler
et al. (C.A. No. 8054-CS), filed on November 21, 2012; (2)
Laborers' District Council Pension and Disability Trust Fund No. 2
et al. v. Campbell et al. (C.A. No. 8059-CS), filed on November
26, 2012; (3) Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v.
Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8096-CS), filed on Dec. 11, 2012; and (4)
Gelfand v. Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8228-CS), filed on January 17,
2013 (collectively, the "Actions").  Each of the Actions names
Leucadia, Jefferies, and the directors of Jefferies, including Ian
M. Cumming and Joseph S. Steinberg, among others, as defendants.

Each Action is brought by a purported holder or holders of
Jefferies common stock, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class of Jefferies stockholders.  The Actions generally
allege, among other things, that the directors of Jefferies
breached their fiduciary duties to Jefferies stockholders by
engaging in a flawed process for selling the company and agreeing
to sell Jefferies for inadequate consideration pursuant to a
merger agreement that contains improper deal protection terms.
The Actions also allege that Jefferies and Leucadia aided and
abetted the Jefferies directors' breach of fiduciary duties.
Certain of the actions further allege that Messrs. Handler,
Friedman, Cumming, Steinberg and Leucadia represent controlling
shareholders of Jefferies and failed to fulfill their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed transaction.  The Actions
seek, among other things, equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages.

                        New York Actions

On December 20, 2012, the plaintiff in the Lasker action filed an
amended complaint adding allegations, among other things, that the
defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding the
proposed transactions to Jefferies stockholders.  The Lasker
plaintiff filed contemporaneously with its amended complaint a
motion for expedited discovery.  In January 2013, the New York
actions were consolidated under the caption Howard Lasker IRA et
al. v. Jefferies Groups Inc., et al. (Index No. 653924/2012), in
New York County.  On January 7, 2013, the defendants moved to
dismiss or stay the New York actions in favor of the litigation
pending in Delaware and opposed the New York plaintiffs' motion
for expedited discovery.  On January 14, 2013, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss or stay.

                        Delaware Actions

On December 18, 2012, the plaintiff in the Genesee County action
filed an amended complaint adding allegations, among other things,
that the defendants failed to fully disclose to Jefferies
stockholders all material information necessary to make an
informed decision regarding the proposed transactions.  On
December 19, 2012, the Genesee County plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary injunction and expedited discovery.  On
January 24, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay
the Delaware actions.  On January 25, 2013, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order of consolidation
and appointment of co-lead counsel that would consolidate the
Delaware actions and appoint each plaintiff's counsel as co-lead
counsel.  On January 29, 2013, the court so ordered the
stipulation of consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel.
The same day, counsel for the Genesee County and Gelfand
plaintiffs filed a letter with the court withdrawing their motion
for expedited discovery.  On February 13, 2013, the Court granted
provisionally the defendants' motion to stay the consolidated
Delaware action through the expiration of certain proceedings in
the New York action.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend both the New York and
Delaware Actions.

New York-based Leucadia National Corporation --
http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a diversified holding company
engaged through its consolidated subsidiaries in a variety of
businesses, including beef processing, manufacturing, gaming
entertainment, real estate activities, medical product development
and winery operations.  The Company also owns approximately 28% of
the outstanding common stock of Jefferies Group, Inc., a full-
service investment bank.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: To Appeal Cert. Order in Debt Collection Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its February 25, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that it intends to appeal an
order certifying classes in the consumer lawsuit related to debt
collection.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries and officers are named
as defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel
Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Sykes action").  The named defendants include the Mel Harris law
firm, certain individuals and members associated with the law
firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its
employees.  The action arises out of the law firm's obtaining
default judgments against approximately 124,000 individuals in New
York City Civil Court with respect to consumer debt purchased by
subsidiaries of the Company.  The Company asserts that it was an
investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer debt and
was regularly informed of the amounts received from debt
collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged
illegal debt collection activities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently obtained
the default judgments in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary
Law (alleged only as to the law firm) and seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and others similarly situated.  Defendants' motions to dismiss
were denied in part (including as to the claims made against the
Company and its subsidiaries) and granted in part (including as to
certain of the claims made against the Company's officers) (the
"Dismissal Decision").  In September 2012, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the following classes:  (i) a class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) with respect to
injunctive and declaratory relief comprised of all persons who
have been or will be sued by the Mel Harris law firm in actions
commenced in New York Civil Court where a default judgment has
been or will be sought in connection with this debt collection
activity and (ii) a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) with respect to liability comprised of all persons
against whom a default judgment has been entered in New York Civil
Court in connection with this debt collection activity (the
"Certification Decision").  Neither the Dismissal Decision nor the
Certification Decision addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

At a November 2012 status conference, the parties advised the
Court of their intention to attempt to resolve the dispute through
mediation.  Those efforts have not been successful to date and the
parties have so advised the Court.  The Company intends to seek an
appeal of the Certification Decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Because an appeal of the
Certification Decision at this time (short of a full judgment on
the merits) is discretionary, there can be no assurance that the
Second Circuit will agree to hear this appeal.  If the Second
Circuit rejects this appeal, the Company will continue to defend
the case vigorously on the merits.

Determinations of both the probability and the estimated amount of
loss or potential loss are judgments made in the context of
developments in the litigation.  The Company reviews these
developments regularly with its outside counsel.  Because the
Company has determined that it would be willing to resolve this
matter with plaintiffs for $20,000,000, it has accrued a
litigation reserve for this contingency in that amount.  In
arriving at this reserve amount, the Company considered a number
of factors, including that (i) while the damages sought are
indeterminate, payment of this reserved amount would not resolve
the case at this time, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome
of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals respecting
class certification), (iii) there are significant factual issues
to be determined or resolved, (iv) relevant law is unsettled and
untested legal theories are presented, (v) the Company has
numerous defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, (vi) there are no
adverse rulings by the Court on the merits of plaintiffs' claims
and (vii) several important litigation milestones, such as the
completion of discovery and the filing of summary judgment
motions, have not yet occurred.

The Company also notes that the plaintiffs in the action -- the
class members certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) -- have alleged certain categories of damages under each
of the statutes underlying their claims.  These damages include
(i) statutory damages, which are capped under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act at $500,000 for the class, and (ii)
actual damages.  While not fully described in the complaint, it
appears that plaintiffs' claim for actual damages includes not
only incidental costs incurred in connection with the default
judgments (including, for example, subway fares to the courthouse
and bank fees), costs relating to emotional distress and costs
related to reputational damage allegedly arising as a result of
the long-term effects of the default judgments, but also the full
amount of the debt that class members paid (whether owed or not)
following entry of the default judgments.  The amount of debt
collected to date totals approximately $90,000,000.  If the
plaintiffs are successful in proving their claims and in proving
actual damages, plaintiffs' damages may be subject to prejudgment
interest and trebling under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

New York-based Leucadia National Corporation --
http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a diversified holding company
engaged through its consolidated subsidiaries in a variety of
businesses, including beef processing, manufacturing, gaming
entertainment, real estate activities, medical product development
and winery operations.  The Company also owns approximately 28% of
the outstanding common stock of Jefferies Group, Inc., a full-
service investment bank.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend
itself against merger-related class action lawsuit, according to
the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On July 21, 2010, AmeriCredit Corp. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with General Motors
Holdings LLC ("GM Holdings"), a Delaware limited liability company
and a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Company ("General
Motors"), and Goalie Texas Holdco Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Texas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of GM Holdings.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged
with and into AmeriCredit, with AmeriCredit continuing as the
surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of GM
Holdings (the "Merger").

On July 28, 2010, an action styled Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp., Clifton H. Morris, Jr.,
Daniel E. Berce, Bruce R. Berkowitz, John R. Clay, Ian M. Cumming,
A.R. Dike, James H. Greer, Douglas K. Higgins, Kenneth H. Jones,
Jr., Justin R. Wheeler and General Motors Company, Defendants, was
filed in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No.
236 246960 10 (the "Labourers' Pension Fund Case").  In the
Labourers' Pension Fund Case, the plaintiff seeks class action
status and alleges that members of the AmeriCredit's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and
approving the proposed transaction between AmeriCredit and GM
Holdings.  Among other relief, the complaint seeks to enjoin both
the transaction from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the
pending transaction and seeks the recovery of damages on behalf of
shareholders and the recovery of attorney fees and expenses.  The
court has not yet determined whether the case may be maintained as
a class action.

New York-based Leucadia National Corporation --
http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a diversified holding company
engaged through its consolidated subsidiaries in a variety of
businesses, including beef processing, manufacturing, gaming
entertainment, real estate activities, medical product development
and winery operations.  The Company also owns approximately 28% of
the outstanding common stock of Jefferies Group, Inc., a full-
service investment bank.


LINKEDIN CORP: Judge Dismisses $5-Mil. Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Vaas, writing for Naked Security, reports that any damage
done to LinkedIn users over the massive June 2012 data breach was
abstract, not actual, a US judge has ruled.  Thus did a $5 million
class-action lawsuit against the networking site get dismissed,
before the case ever breathed the air of a court trial.

The breach resulted in the compromise of 6.5 million users'
passwords.  Within hours of the passwords being posted online,
over 60% of the stolen passwords had been cracked.

Within days of the June breach, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of
all users by two premium LinkedIn users in the US, Katie Szpyrka
and Khalilah Wright.  It charged LinkedIn with failing to use
basic industry standard security practices -- a failing that, the
plaintiffs claimed, led to the data leak.

Specifically, the suit claimed that LinkedIn didn't store
passwords in salted SHA1 hashed format, thereby failing to adhere
to its Privacy Policy's promise to use industry standard protocols
and technology to protect personally identifiable information.

Here's what the security part of LinkedIn's privacy policy said at
the time: "In order to help secure your personal information,
access to your data on LinkedIn is password-protected, and
sensitive data (such as credit card information) is protected by
SSL encryption when it is exchanged between your web browser and
the LinkedIn Web site."  "To protect any data you store on our
servers, LinkedIn also regularly audits its system for possible
vulnerabilities and attacks, and we use a tier one secured-access
data center.

"However, since the internet is not a 100% secure environment, we
cannot ensure or warrant the security of any information you
transmit to LinkedIn. There is no guarantee that information may
not be accessed, disclosed, altered, or destroyed by breach of any
of our physical, technical, or managerial safeguards.

"It is your responsibility to protect the security of your login
information.  Please note that e-mails, instant messaging, and
similar means of communication with other Users of LinkedIn are
not encrypted, and we strongly advise you not to communicate any
confidential information through these means."

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, they failed to provide evidence
of injury coming out of the breach that was "concrete and
particularized," as well as "actual and imminent," US District
Judge Edward J. Davila wrote in his decision.

The plaintiffs claimed to have gotten gipped after they ponied up
the premium membership fee but then didn't get the industry-
standard security the privacy policy promised.  The thing is,
Judge Davila responded, the plaintiffs didn't pay extra for that
security, given that it was promised to both premium and basic
(free) memberships alike.  Rather, what the premium account
holders actually got in return for their fees were advanced
networking tools and enhanced usage of LinkedIn's services, not
great security.

The judge wrote: "The User Agreement and Privacy Policy are the
same for the premium membership as they are for the nonpaying
basic membership. Any alleged promise LinkedIn made to paying
premium account holders regarding security protocols was also made
to non-paying members."

"Thus, when a member purchases a premium account upgrade, the
bargain is not for a particular level of security, but actually
for the advanced networking tools and capabilities to facilitate
enhanced usage of LinkedIn's services.

"The [suit] does not sufficiently demonstrate that included in
Plaintiffs' bargain for premium membership was the promise of a
particular (or greater) level of security that was not part of the
free membership.

Besides, Judge Davila said, the plaintiffs didn't even read the
privacy policy to begin with (at least, they didn't allege to have
read it in the suit), so how can they claim that they forked over
the money for premium memberships based on what it claimed?

As far as injury goes, while Ms. Wright claimed that her password
had been posted online, it didn't result in identity theft or
somebody getting into her account, the judge said, so the claim of
financial harm or injury just doesn't fly.

The judge wrote: "Wright merely alleges that her LinkedIn password
was 'publicly posted on the Internet on June 6, 2012'.  In doing
so, Wright fails to show how this amounts to a legally cognizable
injury, such as, for example, identify theft or theft of her
personally identifiable information."

"One lesson we can take from this is, apparently, that users have
to take security promises and privacy policies with a grain of
salt.

"Beyond that, the nuances of whether a company will be found
liable for security lapses, and the whys and why-nots, intrigue
me.

"I initially conjectured, when the lawsuit was first filed, that
LinkedIn had its work cut out for it in defending itself.  I was
clearly wrong."


M/I HOMES: To Join Global Deal to Settle Defective Drywall Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes, Inc. disclosed in its February 25, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that it will participate in a global
settlement to resolve claims arising from the use of defective
drywall.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties (the "Initial
Action").  The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging
property.  The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and
sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and
attorney's fees.  The Company filed a responsive pleading on or
about April 30, 2009.  The Initial Action was consolidated with
other similar actions not involving the Company and transferred to
the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re:
Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation").  In
connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and nine other homeowners were named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company), including one homeowner named as a
plaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010
against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").
As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.

The Company has entered into agreements with several of the
homeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company
agreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs made
to the homes of other homeowners.  As a result of these
agreements, the Initial Action has been resolved and dismissed,
and seven of the nine other homeowners named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints have dismissed their claims
against the Company.  One of the two remaining plaintiffs has also
filed a complaint in Florida state court asserting essentially the
same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as asserted
in the MDL Omnibus Actions.  The court in the MDL Omnibus Actions
recently entered an order and judgment certifying various
settlement classes and granting final approval of various class
settlements, including a global class action settlement, which is
intended to resolve all Chinese drywall-related claims of and
against those who participate in the settlement.  The Company will
participate in the global settlement.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
claims of any plaintiffs who are not bound by or elect to opt out
of the class action settlement.  Given the inherent uncertainties
in this litigation, there can be no assurance that the ultimate
resolution of the MDL Omnibus Actions, or any other actions or
claims relating to defective drywall that may be asserted in the
future, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries
are builders of single-family homes.  The Company was
incorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commenced
homebuilding activities in 1976.  The Company is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.


MICHAELS STORES: Customer ZIP Code Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court has ruled that retailers that record consumers' ZIP
codes when they make credit card transactions can be sued under
Massachusetts consumer privacy law because they're retaining
personal identification information.  The ruling means that a
putative class action against craft retailer Michaels Stores can
move forward in federal court.


NSP-WISCONSIN: Appeal From 2nd "Comer" Suit's Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned
Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
the February 25, 2013 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, of Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin
corporation.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.
and NSP-Wisconsin.  The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is
unknown.  The defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this
lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this
motion for dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Although Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss is
remote based primarily on existing case law, it is not possible to
estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the
event of an adverse outcome of this matter.  No accrual has been
recorded for this matter.

Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, was
incorporated in 1901 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy Inc.  NSP-Wisconsin is an operating utility primarily
engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity in portions of northwestern Wisconsin and in the
western portion of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.  The Company
is based in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.


NUESKE'S APPLEWOOD: FSIS Lists Stores With Recalled Products
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
liver pate products that have been recalled by Nueske's Applewood
Smoked Meats.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/uXnHOJ,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    V. Richard's                Birmingham, Alabama
    AJ's Fine Food              E. Lincoln Dr., Scottsdale, AZ
    AJ's Fine Food              E. Vialinda, Scottsdale, Arizona
    Jensen's Finest Foods       Palm Springs, California
    Marczyk Fine Foods          Denver, Colorado
    Tony's Meats                Littleton, Colorado
    Fresh Market                Arlington Heights, Illinois
    Buedel Foods                Bridgeview, Illinois
    Village Market Place        Carol Stream, Illinois
    Fresh Market                Chicago, Illinois
    Gene's Sausage Shop         Chicago, Illinois
    Sunset Foods                Highland Park, Illinois
    Walt's Food Store           Homewood, Illinois
    Sunset Foods                Northbrook, Illinois
    Riverside Foods             Riverside, Illinois
    Binny's                     Skokie, Illinois
    R Italian Market            Greenwood, Indiana
    Dean & Deluca               Leawood, Kansas
    Cheese Lady                 Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Martha's Vineyard           Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Horrock's Farm Market       Lansing, Michigan
    Kowalski's                  Eagan, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Eden Prairie, Minnesota
    Lund's                      Edina, Minnesota
    Kowalski's                  Minneapolis, Minnesota
    Byerly's                    Minnetonka, Minnesota
    Lund's                      Navarre, Minnesota
    Buchanan Grocery            Red Wing, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Rochester, Minnesota
    Byerly's                    Roseville, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Shakopee, Minnesota
    Byerly's                    St. Louis Park, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   St. Louis Park, Minnesota
    Coastal Seafoods            St. Paul, Minnesota
    Kowalski's                  St. Paul, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   West St. Paul, Minnesota
    The Better Cheddar          Kansas City, Missouri
    Straub's                    St. Louis, Missouri
    Weiland's Fine Meats        Columbus, Ohio
    Sigel's Fresh Market        Addison, Texas
    Abrams Shell                Abrams, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly               Algoma, Wisconsin
    Sentry Food Store           Delafield, Wisconsin
    County Market               Eau Claire, Wisconsin
    Pick'n Save                 Hales Corner, Wisconsin
    Marketplace Foods           Hayward, Wisconsin
    County Market               Hudson, Wisconsin
    IGA                         Iola, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly               Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly               Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
    Hyvee                       Madison, Wisconsin
    Dupont Cheese               Marion, Wisconsin
    County Market               Merrill, Wisconsin
    Sendik's                    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    West Allis Cheese Shop      Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Cheese Board                Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Trig's                      Minocqua, Wisconsin
    Miller & Sons Supermarket   Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin
    Piggly Wiggly               Oconomowoc, Wisconsin
    Festival Foods              Oshkosh, Wisconsin
    Pick'n Save                 Pewaukee, Wisconsin
    Super Ron's                 Pulaski, Wisconsin
    Trig's                      Rhinelander, Wisconsin
    Pick'n Save                 Schofield, Wisconsin
    County Market               Shawano, Wisconsin
    Pick'n Save                 Shawano, Wisconsin
    Schmitz's Economart         Spooner, Wisconsin
    Marketplace Foods           St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
    Dollar Valu Store           Suring, Wisconsin
    Baker's Foods               Three Lakes, Wisconsin
    County Market               Tomahawk, Wisconsin
    Pick'n Save                 Wales, Wisconsin
    Sentry Food Store           Waukesha, Wisconsin
    Quality Foods               Wausau, Wisconsin
    Pick'n Save                 West Bend, Wisconsin


PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "NECA-IBEW" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the class action lawsuit
initiated by NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, according to the
Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2009, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare
Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the company
during the period between July 30, 2007, and October 29, 2007,
alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September
2010.  After briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed, the
plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint on February 17, 2012.
The Company has moved to dismiss this new amended complaint.  The
Company expects to prevail in this legal action; however, as
litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance
in this regard.  If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may
have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.  Based upon the Company's
current understanding of the facts and applicable laws, the
Company does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that
any loss has been incurred.

Stamford, Connecticut-based Pitney Bowes Inc. --
http://www.pb.com/-- and its subsidiaries is a global provider of
software, hardware and services that enables both physical and
digital communications and that integrates those physical and
digital communications channels.  It offers a full suite of
equipment, supplies, software, services and solutions for managing
and integrating physical and digital communication channels.


PLAINS EXPLORATION: Faces Class Suit Related to McMoRan Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plains Exploration & Production Company is facing a class action
lawsuit arising from a merger transaction involving its
subsidiary, according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 5, 2012, McMoRan Exploration Co. announced a
definitive agreement (the merger agreement) under which Freeport-
McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (FCX) will acquire McMoRan for
approximately $3.4 billion in cash, or $2.1 billion net of the 36
percent ownership interest currently held by FCX and Plains
Exploration & Production Company (PXP) (the FCX/MMR merger).

Between December 11, 2012, and December 26, 2012, ten putative
class actions challenging the FCX/MMR merger were filed on behalf
of all McMoRan stockholders by purported McMoRan stockholders.
Nine were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court of Chancery").  On January 25, 2013, the Court of
Chancery consolidated the actions into a single action, In re
McMoRan Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No. 8132-VCN.  One
action was also filed on December 19, 2012, in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans of the State of Louisiana, Langley
v. Moffett et al., No. 2012-11904.  The defendants in these
lawsuits include McMoRan, members of the McMoRan board of
directors, FCX, INAVN Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of FCX (the
"merger sub"), another subsidiary of FCX, the Gulf Coast Ultra
Deep Royalty Trust and PXP.  The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that members of the McMoRan board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to McMoRan's stockholders because they,
among other things, pursued their own interests at the expense of
stockholders and failed to maximize stockholder value with respect
to the merger, and that FCX, the merger sub and PXP aided and
abetted that breach of fiduciary duties.  The consolidated
Delaware action also asserts claims derivatively on behalf of
McMoRan.  These lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction
barring or rescinding the FCX/MMR merger, damages, and attorney's
fees and costs.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Plains Exploration & Production
Company is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged in
the activities of acquiring, developing, exploring and producing
oil and gas in California, Texas, Louisiana and the Gulf of
Mexico.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Appeal From "Comer II" Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit involving
Public Service Company of Colorado and its parent remains pending,
according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are PSCo and its
parent, Xcel Energy Inc.  The amount of damages claimed by
plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants believe this lawsuit is
without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March
2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal.

In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Although Xcel Energy Inc.
believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on
existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse
outcome of this matter.  No accrual has been recorded for this
matter.

Public Service Company of Colorado was incorporated in 1924 under
the laws of Colorado and is headquartered in Denver.  PSCo, a
subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc., is an operating utility engaged
primarily in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution
and sale of electricity in Colorado.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Attendants Seek to Renew Dismissed Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
stateroom attendants are seeking to renew their dismissed appeal,
according to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s February 25, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels alleging that they were required to
pay other crew members to help with their duties in violation of
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.  The lawsuit also alleges that certain
stateroom attendants were required to work back of house
assignments without the ability to earn gratuities in violation of
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.  Plaintiffs seek judgment for damages,
wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount.  In May
2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining
agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated.  Plaintiff's
appeal of this decision was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by
the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.  Plaintiffs are
seeking to renew their appeal.

The Company believes the appeal is without merit as are the
underlying claims made against it and it intends to vigorously
defend itself against them.

Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. --
http://www.rclinvestor.com/-- is a global cruise company
incorporated in July 1985 in the Republic of Liberia.  It owns
Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur,
Azamara Club Cruises, CDF Croisieres de France as well as TUI
Cruises.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is still awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit in
Florida, according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Between August 1, 2011, and September 8, 2011, three similar
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District of Florida.  The cases
have since been consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on February 17, 2012.  The consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from October 26,
2010, through July 27, 2011, and names the Company, its Chairman
and CEO, its CFO, the President and CEO of the Company's Royal
Caribbean International brand and the former President and CEO of
its Celebrity Cruises brand as defendants.  The consolidated
amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as, in
the case of the individual defendants, the control person
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act.  The complaint
principally alleges that the defendants knowingly made incorrect
statements concerning the Company's outlook for 2011 by not taking
into proper account lagging European and Mediterranean bookings.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on April 9, 2012.  Briefing on that motion
was completed on August 2, 2012.  The motion is currently pending.
The Company believes the claims made against it are without merit
and it intends to vigorously defend itself against them.

Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. --
http://www.rclinvestor.com/-- is a global cruise company
incorporated in July 1985 in the Republic of Liberia.  It owns
Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur,
Azamara Club Cruises, CDF Croisieres de France as well as TUI
Cruises.


SOFT AIR: Recalls 2,400 Swiss Arms Air Rifles Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Soft Air USA, of Grapevine, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,400 Break-Barrel Air Rifles.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The air gun can discharge while the safety is engaged, posing a
risk of injury to consumers and those nearby.  Soft Air reports no
incidents and no injuries.

The recalled product is a Swiss Arms break-barrel, single-shot air
rifle.  The rifle is 34 inches long with a black barrel.  It has a
wood stock with checkering etched on the grip and forend and a
rubber recoil pad on the butt.  It has a metal fixed front sight,
a fold-down rear sight and a receiver for mounting optics.  The
rifle comes with a 4x32 millimeter scope.  "XT32" and
"Cal.4.5/.177" are on the left side of the barrel hinge plate.
The rifle is cocked by swinging the barrel down on its hinge to
"break" the gun open for loading, then swinging the barrel back up
into firing position.  Model number "288719" is located on the
barrel near the rear sight.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/StF8SI

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Sports Authority in December 2012 for $100.

Consumers should return recalled Swiss Arms air rifles to Sports
Authority for a full refund.  Soft Air USA may be reached toll-
free at (866) 763-8247 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time
Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.softairusa.com/,
and click on Customer Service for more information.


SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Appeal in "Comer II" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit titled
Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
Southwestern Public Service Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are SPS and its
parent, Xcel Energy Inc.  The amount of damages claimed by
plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants believe this lawsuit is
without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March
2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal.
In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Although Xcel Energy Inc.
believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on
existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse
outcome of this matter.  No accrual has been recorded for this
matter.

Based in Amarillo, Texas, Southwestern Public Service Company was
incorporated in 1921 under the laws of New Mexico and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc.  SPS is an operating utility
engaged primarily in the generation, purchase, transmission,
distribution, and sale of electricity in portions of Texas and New
Mexico.


SUNPOWER CORP: Awaits Initial Approval of $19.7-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation is awaiting preliminary approval of its $19.7
million settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's February 25, 2013, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 30, 2012.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through
November 16, 2009.  The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010.  The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011.
An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011.  The amended
complaint added two former employees as defendants.  The
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May
23, 2011.  The motions to dismiss the amended complaint were heard
by the court on August 11, 2011.  On December 19, 2011, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the claims brought pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims brought against the two
newly added former employees.

On December 14, 2012, the Company announced that it reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit for $19.7 million.  The Company recorded a charge
in its fiscal fourth quarter of 2012 in the same amount which is
further classified within "Accrued liabilities" on the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 30, 2012.  On February
1, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The motion was
noticed to be heard on March 14, 2013.  The settlement is subject
to certain conditions, including final approval by the court after
members of the proposed settlement class receive notice and an
opportunity to be heard.

Until the conditions to the settlement have been satisfied, the
Company says there can be no assurance that the settlement will
become final.  If the settlement does not become final, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these allegations
and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.

Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation --
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/-- an integrated solar products and
services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solar
electric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale
power plant customers worldwide.  SunPower is a subsidiary of
Total Gas & Power USA, SAS.


TANGOE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Corrects Class Action Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on March 7 issued
a corrected notice to clarify the Lead Plaintiff appointment
deadline in the securities class action lawsuit it filed on behalf
of class members against Tangoe, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action filed in United States District Court, District
of Connecticut, and docketed under 3:13-CV-286(VLB), is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Tangoe between December 20, 2011
and September 5, 2012, both dates inclusive of.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tangoe securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 30, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address and telephone number.

Tangoe develops and markets computer software to help companies
manage and control their fixed and mobile communications assets
and costs.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
orchestrated a scheme to inflate their share price through a
series of acquisitions, and made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company was overstating organic growth by underreporting the
percentage of revenue derived from recent acquisitions; (ii) the
Company was not growing customers organically as its deferred
implementation fees failed to grow; and (iii) as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 28, 2012, a report was published by thestreetsweeper.org
that described the Company as having a "risky acquisition-driven
growth strategy."  On this news, Tangoe shares declined $3.39 per
share, or nearly 17%, to close at $16.70 per share on August 28,
2012.

On September 6, 2012, Copperfield Research published a report
concluding that the Company had materially misrepresented its
organic growth rate.  On this news, Tangoe shares declined $1.03
per share, or 6% on September 6, 2012.  The stock continued to
decline an additional $1.68 per share or 10.5%, to close at $14.29
per share on September 7, 2012.

With offices in New York, Chicago, and San Diego, The Pomerantz
Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.


* Atlanta-Area Banks Face ADA ATM Accessibility Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
J. Colin Knisely, Esq. -- CKnisely@duanemorris.com -- William D.
Barwick, Esq. -- wdbarwick@duanemorris.com -- and Amelia (Amy) H.
Huskins, Esq. -- AHHuskins@duanemorris.com -- at Duane Morris LLP
report that the first of what is likely to be many Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) ATM accessibility class action lawsuits
against Atlanta-area banks was filed in federal district court in
Atlanta.  The lawsuit was filed by the same Pittsburgh-based law
firm, Carlson Lynch, responsible for the filing of over 100 nearly
identical ADA ATM class action lawsuits in federal district courts
in Pennsylvania and Texas since March 2012.

Although there are now more than 100 pending lawsuits, the cases
involve only a handful of named plaintiffs, all blind individuals
who claim that they were denied services by certain banks as the
result of ATMs that are not accessible to the visually impaired.
One such plaintiff, Robert Jahoda, has now filed 35 ADA ATM
lawsuits in federal district court in Pittsburgh.  All of the
complaints specifically quote a March 2012 Wall Street Journal
article that maintains that nearly 50 percent of the more than
400,000 ATMs in the United States are inaccessible to the visually
impaired, despite the fact that new standards pertaining to
accessibility to ATMs for the visually impaired took effect on
March 15, 2011, and all ATMs were required to be upgraded to meet
these new requirements by March 15, 2012.  If the plaintiff and
plaintiff's law firm follow the same strategy that was used in
Pennsylvania and Texas, it is anticipated that a number of
virtually identical class action lawsuits will be filed by against
Atlanta-area banks, and banks throughout Georgia, over the course
of the next several days and weeks.

The more salient ADA ATM requirements are as follows:

                          Speech Output

Machines shall be speech enabled.  Operating instructions and
orientation, visible transaction prompts, user input verification,
error messages and all displayed information for full use shall be
accessible to and independently usable by individuals with vision
impairments.  Speech shall be delivered through a mechanism that
is readily available to all users, including but not limited to,
an industry standard connector or a telephone handset.  Speech
shall be recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. 2010 ADA --
707.5

                          Input Controls

At least one tactilely discernible input control shall be provided
for each function.  Where provided, key surfaces not on active
areas of display screens shall be raised above surrounding
surfaces.  Where membrane keys are the only method of input, each
shall be tactilely discernable from surrounding surfaces and
adjacent keys. 2010 ADA -- 707.6.1

                         Numeric Keypads

Numeric keys shall be arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending
telephone keypad layout.  The number five key shall be tactilely
distinct from the other keys. 2010 ADA -- 707.6.2

                          Display Screen

The display screen shall be visible from a point located 40 inches
(1015 mm) above the center of the clear floor space in front of
the machine.  Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a
sans serif font.  Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high
minimum, based on the uppercase letter "I."  Characters shall
contrast with their background with either light characters on a
dark background or dark characters on a light background. 2010 ADA
-- 707.7.1, 707.7.2

                        Braille Instructions

Braille instructions for initiating the speech mode shall be
provided.


* Growing Online Privacy Concerns Spur Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Selina Koonar, Esq. -- skoonar@davis.ca -- at Davis LLP reports
that in addition to e-mail, social networking Web sites (such as
Facebook, MySpace, Google+, Twitter, and LinkedIn) have become the
established norm for communication and maintaining relationships.
While these Web sites are useful tools for exchanging information,
many users are concerned that their personal details are being
circulated far more widely than they would like.  The growing
concerns over privacy breaches have resulted in a number of class
action lawsuits.  This article will review the class action
lawsuits relating to privacy against Instagram, Facebook, and
Google.

                            Instagram

Instagram is a mobile photo sharing app which allows people to add
filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the
Internet.  Instagram was acquired by Facebook in 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Instagram announced several changes to its
Terms of Service.  In summary, the new Terms of Service suggested
Instagram would be allowed to use pictures in advertisements
without notifying or compensating users, and to disclose user data
to Facebook and to advertisers.  Instagram also proposed that the
parents of minors implicitly consent to the use of their
childrens' images for advertising purposes.  The new Terms of
Service also introduced a mandatory arbitration clause which would
force users to waive their rights to file a class action lawsuit
in most circumstances.  The changes were to take effect on January
16, 2013 and would not apply to pictures uploaded before that
date.

Many users expressed outrage.  As a result, a few days later,
Instagram again revised the Terms of Service announcing that it
would withdraw some of the proposed changes.  Instagram backed off
a plan to use the names, images, and photos of users for
advertising purposes by deleting language about displaying photos
without compensation.  However, Instagram kept language that gave
it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content,
saying "we may not always identify paid services, sponsored
content, or commercial communications as such".  It also kept the
mandatory arbitration clause.

A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on December 21, 2012 which
accused Instagram of violating the property rights of its users
and breaching its existing terms of service.  The class action
lawsuit seeks to preserve valuable and important property,
statutory, and legal rights, through injunctive, declaratory and
equitable relief before such claims are forever barred by adoption
of Instagram's New Terms.  The lawsuit takes particular issue with
Instagram's ownership of user images, especially in the situation
where a user quits the service and, according to Instagram's Terms
of Service, loses ownership of their photos to the company.

On February 13, 2013, Instagram asked the federal court to dismiss
the class action lawsuit filed over changes to Instagram's Terms
of Service.  Instagram argued that the plaintiff, Lucy Funes, had
no right to bring her claim because she could have deleted her
Instagram account before the changes in the Terms of Service went
into effect on January 19, 2013.  According to Instagram's filing,
Ms. Funes filed the lawsuit on December 21, nearly a month before
the changes in the Terms of Service went into effect and she
continued to use her account after that day.  Instagram also
disputed Funes' claims that the new terms required her to transfer
rights in her photos to the company. Furthermore, Instagram took
the position that both the old service terms and the new terms
"emphasize that the individual owns the content he/she posts
through Instagram's service".

                            Facebook

In April 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against Facebook
in the USA (in British Columbia, a similar class action was filed
in March 2012) after some users expressed outrage that Facebook
was using people's information and photographs without permission
to display sponsored stories.  The lawsuits argue that Facebook's
sponsored stories allow brands to use the photos and names of
people who have "liked" their brand in their advertisements on the
social network.  The lawsuit took the position that the sponsored
stories were a part of Facebook's business model, and wrongly
turned interaction on the Web site, such as people "checking in"
at a brand outlet, commenting on a product or liking a service,
into advertisements by republishing this information in the main
news feed.

At the time of the USA lawsuit, Facebook took the position that it
was reviewing the situation and continued to believe that the
class action suit was without merit.  Facebook also used the USA
First Amendment as a defense to its practice.  Facebook stated
that when people click the 'like' button on a brand's Facebook
page; this could be taken as those people effectively giving their
consent for their name (and presumably their photograph) to be
allied to that company and to endorsing the company in a sponsored
story or advertisement.

The USA lawsuit was the first one of its kind to have made any
progress in the courts.  As a result, Facebook announced to its
users that it is willing to pay out $20 million to settle the
class action lawsuit.  The offer is one of a number of attempts by
Facebook to settle the lawsuit (which remains pending).  The
British Columbia lawsuit also remains pending.

In the early part of 2013, Facebook e-mailed its USA members to
tell them that they may be eligible for a share of the funds if
their names, profile pictures or photographs were used in one of
the sponsored stories.  E-mails to USA members started going out
at the end of January 2013.

However, Facebook's users may not see any of the cash even if they
are eligible.  If the number of claims makes it "economically
infeasible" to pay everyone cash, Facebook proposes to channel
most of that settlement cash to non-for-profit Internet privacy
advocacy groups.  Those who received the settlement notice have
until May 2, 2013, to decide if they want to submit a claim.  A
final hearing on the USA case is slated to take place in June
2013.

The certification hearing for the British Columbia class action is
also scheduled for June 2013.

                               Google

In October 2012, Wayne Plimmer of Sechelt, British Columbia filed
a class action suit against Google, claiming that Google is
illegally spying on the incoming mail of their webmail users.

It alleges that Google's Gmail service "intercepts, obtains and
uses personal information it collects from e-mails sent to Gmail
users".  Gmail users can only use the service if they consent to
Google's terms of service, which explicitly allow the company's
algorithms to scan e-mail in order to present targeted ads.  The
lawsuit claims breaches of sections 1 and 3 of the British
Columbia Privacy Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 373 and s.52 of the Federal
Competition Act R.S.C. 1985 c. C-34.  The lawsuit also alleges
that Google "infringes on the e-mail senders' copyright, as well
as solicitor-client, physician-patient, priest-penitent and
journalist-source privileges".

This case parallels many of the aspects of the three cases filed
in July 2012 in California, against Google & Yahoo!.  However, the
BC lawsuit differs in that the plaintiff is not a Gmail user,
which could render some of his arguments moot.  Instead, the
plaintiff argues that Google is invading his privacy by scanning
and using data in e-mails he sends to Gmail users.

The BC lawsuit is launched on behalf of "all persons in the
province of British Columbia who have sent e-mail to a Gmail
account", and asks for an injunction that would stop Google from
intercepting any e-mails sent from British Columbia, as well as
claiming statutory damages for breach of copyright of $500 per e-
mail.  The suit also states that Google should be required to
delete any and all e-mails sent by members of the class action
lawsuit.  At this time the class action has yet to be certified.


                           *********

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  * * *