text: /raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 251 HeadlinesALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Brought by Dearborn HeightsAPPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Download Class Action v. ITunesASPENBIO PHARMA: Appeal From AppyScore Suit Dismissal PendingBON-TON STORES: Agrees to Pay $450,000 Penalty Over DrawstringsCENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Resolution of Two Gas Market LawsuitsCHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Northera-Related Suit PendingFIBRIA CELULOSE: Deal Under Judicial Mediation Session RatifiedFIDELITY NATIONAL: "Searcy" Suit Deal Became Effective Oct. 29FIORUCCI FOODS: Recalls 2,650 Lbs. of MortadellaGEORGIA-PACIFIC: Faces Class Action Over Drywall Price-FixingHOSPIRA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in IllinoisHOSPIRA INC: ERISA Violation Class Suit Dismissed in OctoberLEBEAU INC: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid WagesLOCAL SERVICE: Colo. Court Rules on Elbert County Zoning DisputeMONSTER BEVERAGE: Sued in Calif. Over Mislabeling of Energy DrinkNASDAQ OMX: Defends Class Action Suits Over Facebook IPONOKIA: New York Securities Class Action WithdrawnOCEAN BEAUTY: Recalls Nathan's/LASCCO Cold Smoked Atlantic SalmonPHILIP MORRIS: Judge Refuses to Reopen $10-Bil. Class ActionPORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Awaits Court Rulings in TCPA Violations MDLSALT LAKE CITY, UT: ACLU Files Class Action Over "Gang Sweep"SOUNDBITE COMMS: Class Action Over TCPA Violations DismissedSOUTHERN CO: Appeal From Amended "Comer" Suit Dismissal PendingTRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in Puerto Rican Dentists' SuitTRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: TSP Still Defends Two Vehicle Owner SuitsUNITED STATES: Justice Dept. Has Not Yet Appealed "Beer" RulingVENOCO INC: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in DelawareVIRGINIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Medical Care Suit v. FCCWVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Stueve Siegel Hanson's Legal Fees ChallengedWALT DISNEY: Settles Class Action; Awaits Court ApprovalWELLPOINT INC: "ADA" Suit Summary Judgment Affirmed by 11th Cir.WELLPOINT INC: Review of "Mell" Suit Dismissal Not SoughtWELLPOINT INC: Plaintiffs Amend Out-of-Network MDL ComplaintWELLS FARGO: Accused of Contacting Class Without Prior ConsentWILLIS GROUP: Appeal in Contingent Compensation Suit WithdrawnWILLIS GROUP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stanford Collapse *********ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Brought by Dearborn Heights--------------------------------------------------------------City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police and Fire RetirementSystem, Individually and on Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated v. Align Technology, Inc., Thomas M. Prescott and KennethB. Arola, Case No. 5:12-cv-06039 (N.D. Calif.,November 28, 2012) is brought on behalf of purchasers ofAlign common stock between April 23, 2012, and October 17, 2012,inclusive, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the securitieslaws by disseminating materially false and misleading statementsand concealing material adverse facts regarding Align's currentfinancial condition and growth prospects. As a result of thesemisrepresentations and omissions, Align's stock traded atartificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching ahigh of $39.17 per share on September 13, 2012, the Plaintiffexplains.The Plaintiff purchased the common stock of Align at artificiallyinflated prices during the Class Period and has been damaged bythe alleged illegal conduct.Align is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its headquartersin San Jose, California. Align designs, manufactures and marketsInvisalign, a proprietary method for treating malocclusion, or themisalignment of teeth, using a series of clear, removableappliances that gently and incrementally move teeth to a desiredfinal position. Mr. Prescott is Align's president and chiefexecutive officer. Mr. Arola is Align's chief financial officerand vice president of finance.The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Darren Jay Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com INC: Seeks Dismissal of Download Class Action v. ITunes-------------------------------------------------------------Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that ITunesclearly discloses that multiple charges accompany multipledownloads of the same song, Apple said, urging a federal judge totoss a class action.Robert Herskowitz and Phoebe Juel purport to represent a class ofcustomers who made repeated downloads of the same song fromiTunes, only to discover that Apple charged them every time.Ms. Juel says Apple charged her when she downloaded a song fromApple that she had already downloaded but could not locate on hercomputer. Mr. Herskowitz alleges he was charged more than oncefor the same product.A federal judge consolidated their cases, which allege breach ofcontract, bad faith, violations of the Consumers Legal RemediesAct, fraud and unjust enrichment.Apple moved to dismiss on Dec. 11, saying that the plaintiffs "donot and cannot point to any legal obligation requiring Apple toprovide them with a second download of the same song free ofcharge. To the contrary, their agreement with Apple expresslybars that claim, and provided an express and exclusive remedy thatplaintiffs ignore."While the plaintiffs admit that the iTunes agreements governedtheir purchases, they "ignore the provisions of the agreement thatmake clear that their claims are without merit," according to theApple motion, authored by Morrison & Foerster attorney PenelopePreovolos. "The agreement expressly states that iTunes songs 'maybe downloaded only once and cannot be replaced if lost for anyreason.'"If a song is not delivered or is unreasonably delayed, theagreement says that a consumer's "exclusive and sole remedy iseither replacement or refund of the price paid, as determined byApple," Ms. Preovolos added.But rather than contacting Apple, each plaintiff allegedlydownloaded the song again and then complained that they werecharged again.Apple says Ms. Juel's inability to find the song on her computer"was almost certainly due to user error and not any fault ofApple's." Ms. Juel "never contacted Apple or attempted to takeadvantage of her contractual remedy," according to the motion.Mr. Herskowitz meanwhile "seeks to avoid the agreement's terms byambiguous pleading, alleging that he was "charged more than oncefor the same [iTunes song]," Apple says. But he too simplydownloaded "the same song a second time without first contactingApple to take advantage of the exclusive contractual remedy," themotion states.The bad faith claims are also "contrary to the express terms ofthe contract," Apple says, quoting precedent that says "theimplied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot, as amatter of law, extend to 'conduct expressly disclaimed by theexpress terms of the contract.'"Apple says the bad faith claims are also "an inappropriatereiteration of their breach of contract claims and aresuperfluous."As for the claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Applesays this law does not apply to software such as iTunes. The CLRAprovides civil remedies for conduct in the sale of "goods" or"services," but Apple says software is neither a "good" nor a"service" within the meaning of the CLRA.This law also requires the allegations to establish "eitherprocedural or substantive unconscionability," but Mr. Herskowitzdoes not adequately allege that he suffered "surprise" or"oppression" in his dealings with Apple, according to the motion.Apple says Mr. Herskowitz could not be surprised at the terms ofthe contract because "the provision that songs could be downloadedonly once was prominently disclosed in the first section of theagreement as well as set forth in all upper case letters in thesection limiting liabilities. The provision that all sales arefinal and no refunds are available was also prominently disclosedon the first page of the agreement."Mr. Herskowitz was also not oppressed because he could have simplychosen to buy digital music from a different source, according tothe brief.His unfair competition claims, which also rely on Apple's alleged"unconscionability," Apple says, noting that "there is nothing'unfair' about Apple's clear and contractual provision thatpurchasers may download an iTunes song only once."Ms. Juel "does not come close to meeting Rule 9(b)'s heightenedpleading requirement that she allege facts establishing the 'who,what, when and where' of the alleged fraud," according to themotion. "Juel does not allege any representation regarding thesupposed right to redownload a song onto the device for free.Rather, Juel purports to rely on alleged representations thatiTunes purchasers could 'burn' iTunes songs to multiple CDs, playsongs, on multiple devices or store songs from multiple accounts.But none of these representations in any way suggests that a songcan be downloaded multiple times to a single device, as Juel did,without additional payment."Ms. Juel also never alleges that she ever tried to burn a song tomultiple CDs, play a song on more than one device, or store songsfrom multiple accounts, let alone that she was unable to do so,Apple says."She offers only conclusory assertions, not facts, regarding therequired elements of reliance, knowledge and falsity, and intentto defraud," the motion states.Mr. Herskowitz is represented by: Joseph Tabacco Jr., Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: email@example.com. Juel is represented by Christopher Land of San Francisco's LawOffices of John A. Kithas.A copy of the Defendant Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motionto Dismiss First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof inHerskowitz, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02131 (N.D.Calif.), and in Juel, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03124(N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/14/herskapp.pdfApple Inc. is represented by: Penelope a. Preovolos, Esq. Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Suzanna p. Brickman, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com PHARMA: Appeal From AppyScore Suit Dismissal Pending-------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit relating toAspenBio Pharma, Inc.'s test kit product, AppyScore, remainspending, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2012.On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captionedJohn Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365 (the"Wolfe Lawsuit"). This federal securities purported class actionwas filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District ofCalifornia on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants,who purchased common stock of the Company during the periodbetween February 22, 2007, and July 19, 2010, inclusive. Thecomplaint named as defendants certain officers and directors ofthe Company during such period. The complaint includedallegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act andSEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of theExchange Act against the individual defendants, all related to theCompany's blood-based acute appendicitis test in development knownas AppyScore. On the Company's motion, this action was alsotransferred to the U.S. District Court for the District ofColorado by order dated January 21, 2011. The action has beenassigned a District of Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT. On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff andapproved lead counsel. On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintifffiled an amended putative class action complaint, alleging thesame class period. Based on a review of the amended complaint,the Company and the individual defendants believe that theplaintiffs' allegations are without merit, has vigorously defendagainst these claims, and intends to continue to do so.On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss theamended complaint, and the plaintiff's response and the Company'sreply thereto were subsequently filed.On September 13, 2012, the United States District Court forColorado granted the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing theplaintiffs' claims against all defendants without prejudice. OnSeptember 14, 2012, the court entered Final Judgment withoutprejudice on behalf of all defendants and against all plaintiffsin the Wolfe Lawsuit. The Order to dismiss the action found infavor of the Company and all of the individual defendants.On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal ofthe Order granting the motion to dismiss and of the Final Judgmentin the Wolfe Lawsuit.BON-TON STORES: Agrees to Pay $450,000 Penalty Over Drawstrings---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced thatThe Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. of York, Pennsylvania, has agreed to paya civil penalty in the amount of $450,000. The penalty agreement[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13070.pdf]has been provisionally accepted by the Commission in a 3-0 vote.The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that the firmknowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required byfederal law, that its children's hooded jackets and sweatshirtswere sold with drawstrings through the hood.Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings, including jackets andsweatshirts, pose a strangulation hazard to children. CPSC andthree U.S. importers announced recalls of children's jackets andsweatshirts with drawstrings through the hood on February 18,March 10 and May 27, 2010. Bon-Ton was a retailer of about 800total jackets and sweatshirts in all three recalls.CPSC began warning about drawstring dangers in the early 1990s.The agency issued guidelines in 1996 about drawstrings inchildren's upper outerwear. Those guidelines were incorporatedinto an industry voluntary standard in 1997. In 2006, CPSC'sOffice of Compliance announced (pdf) that children's upperouterwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regardedas defective and presenting a substantial risk of injury to youngchildren. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines andvoluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation thatdesignated as substantial product hazards children's upperouterwear in sizes 2T to 12 (or extra-small to large) with neck orhood drawstrings, and children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T to 16(or extra-small to extra-large) with certain waist or bottomdrawstrings.Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers toreport to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaininginformation reasonably supporting the conclusion that a productcontains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard,creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or failsto comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC. Federal law alsobars selling products that have been subject to a voluntary recallby a manufacturer or a mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.In agreeing to the settlement, Bon-Ton denies CPSC staffallegations that it knowingly violated the law.CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Resolution of Two Gas Market Lawsuits----------------------------------------------------------------CenterPoint Energy, Inc., is awaiting resolution of two lawsuitsfiled against numerous gas market participants including theCompany, according to CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s November 7, 2012,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended September 30, 2012.A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas marketparticipants in a number of federal and western state courts inconnection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, Reliant Resources,Inc. (RRI), was a participant in gas trading in the California andWestern markets. These lawsuits, many of which were filed asclass actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrustlaws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of formsof relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatorydamages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling ofcompensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named inapproximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have sincebeen released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary ofCenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and, together withits subsidiaries, CERC), is a defendant in a case now pending infederal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsinnatural gas prices in 2000-2002. In July 2011, the court issuedan order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the otherdefendants in the case, each of whom had demonstrated FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") jurisdictional sales forresale during the relevant period, based on federal preemption.The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuitfiled in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but inMarch 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the NevadaSupreme Court. In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Courtaffirmed the dismissal. In October 2012, the Nevada Supreme Courtgranted the plaintiffs' motion to stay the dismissal of this casepending the filing and final disposition of their petition for awrit of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a properdefendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursuedismissal from those cases. CenterPoint Energy does not expectthe ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a materialimpact on its financial condition, results of operations or cashflows.CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Northera-Related Suit Pending----------------------------------------------------------------A consolidated class action lawsuit relating to ChelseaTherapeutics International, Ltd.'s Northera product remainspending, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2012.During late 2011 and early 2012, the Company was focused onpreparations for the potential commercial launch of Northera(TM)(droxidopa) in the United States in anticipation of U.S. Food andDrug Administration ("FDA") approval. In November 2011, the FDAaccepted for filing the Company's New Drug Application, or NDA,seeking approval to market Northera for the treatment ofNeurogenic OH in patients with primary autonomic failure(including Parkinson's disease, or PD, multiple systems atrophy,or MSA, and pure autonomic failure, or PAF), dopamine-Beta-hydroxylase, or DBH, deficiency and non-diabetic autonomicneuropathy that the Company had submitted in September 2011. Theclinical portion of the NDA included combined safety and efficacydata from the Company's two completed Phase III studies inNeurogenic OH, Study 301 and Study 302, two long-term open-labelextension studies, Study 303 and Study 304, a dedicated thoroughQTc study and a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoringstudy, Study 305.In February 2012, a meeting of the Cardiovascular and Renal DrugsAdvisory Committee, or CRDAC, was held, at the request of the FDA,to review and discuss the Northera NDA. The CRDAC recommended, ina 7 to 4 vote, that the FDA approve the Company's NDA to marketNorthera in the United States.However, on March 28, 2012, the Company announced that the FDA hadissued a Complete Response Letter, or a CRL, regarding theCompany's Northera NDA that included a request by the FDA that theCompany submit data from an additional positive study to supportefficacy. It was recommended that such a study be designed todemonstrate durability of effect over a 2- to 3-month period.Notably, the CRL did not identify any outstanding safety concerns.In addition, the FDA provided comments on the draft labelingsubmitted for Northera, including a preliminary recommendation toinclude a black box warning due to the lack of available data onpatients in a fully supine position. However, the letterindicated that such a boxed warning could be reconsidered ifsuitable data demonstrating a lack of severe hypertension in afully supine position were provided.In May 2012, the Company completed an End-of-Review Meeting, orEOR, with the FDA to review the CRL and more fully understand theFDA's concerns regarding the Northera NDA. In preparation forthis meeting, the Company prepared an information package,including a proposal for utilizing data from the Company's thenongoing Study 306B to support the Northera NDA that called for achange in the primary endpoint of Study 306B to the orthostatichypotension symptom assessment, or OHSA, item #1 score (dizziness,lightheadedness, feeling faint or "feeling like you might blackout") at visit 4 (one-week post titration) and a recommendation toincrease the number of patients targeted for enrollment in thestudy to approximately 200. Based on feedback received during theEOR, the Company submitted a revised protocol for Study 306B,proposing a change in the primary endpoint of Study 306B to OHSA,item #1 at visit 5 (two-weeks post titration) and supportingblinding documentation regarding the study for FDA review.Following the receipt of the CRL in March 2012 and the subsequentdecline of the market price of the Company's common stock, twopurported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012, andanother purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2012,in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of NorthCarolina against the Company and certain of its executiveofficers.The complaints generally allege that, during differing classperiods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule10b-5 and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of theExchange Act in making various statements related to the Company'sdevelopment of Northera for the treatment of neurogenic OH and thelikelihood of FDA approval. The complaints seek unspecifieddamages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Followingconsolidation of the three lawsuits and the appointment of a leadplaintiff, a consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2012,on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock fromNovember 3, 2008, through March 28, 2012. The Company and itsofficers intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit but areunable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range ofpossible loss at this time.FIBRIA CELULOSE: Deal Under Judicial Mediation Session Ratified---------------------------------------------------------------Fibria Celulose SA disclosed that the agreement under judicialmediation session class action number 08-23317 - CIV - Lenard /O'SULLIVAN, driven Firefighters' Pension Fund and Police OfficersDistrict of Florida - Miami Beach, against the company and itsformer CEO and CFO was ratified on Dec. 13 in the meeting of thecompany's Board of Directors. In that agreement, the company andthe other co- defendants agreed to pay the full amount ofUS$37,500,000.00 (thirty seven million five hundred thousandAmerican dollars) to all holders of ADRs (American depositaryreceipt) of former Aracruz Celulose SA, from April 7 to October 2,2008.Fibria informs the market that has Directors and Officersinsurance, with coverage extended to the company for reimbursementof the disbursement.FIDELITY NATIONAL: "Searcy" Suit Deal Became Effective Oct. 29--------------------------------------------------------------Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s settlement of aclass action lawsuit initiated by Gladys Searcy became effectiveon October 29, 2012, according to the Company's November 7, 2012,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended September 30, 2012.Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation is a nationwide putativeclass action that was filed against the Company's subsidiaryeFunds Corporation and its affiliate Deposit Payment ProtectionServices, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois during the first quarter of 2008. Thecomplaint seeks damages for an alleged willful violation of theFair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection with theoperation of the Shared Check Authorization Network. Plaintiff'sprincipal allegation is that consumers did not receive appropriatedisclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA because thedisclosures did not include: (i) all information in the consumer'sfile at the time of the request; (ii) the source of theinformation in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names of anypersons who requested information related to the consumer's checkwriting history during the prior year. Plaintiff filed a motionfor class certification, which was granted with respect to twosubclasses during the first quarter of 2010. The motion wasdenied with respect to all other subclasses. The Company filed amotion for reconsideration. The motion was granted and the twosubclasses were decertified. The plaintiff also filed motions toamend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to thelawsuit. The court granted the motions.During the second quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion forsummary judgment as to the original plaintiff and a motion forsanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel based onplaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in support ofthe motion for class certification. In the third quarter of 2010,the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted inpart and denied in part the motion for sanctions. The Companyfiled a motion requesting the court to allow it to file aninterlocutory appeal on the order denying the motion for summaryjudgment. The court granted the motion; however, in the firstquarter of 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied theCompany's petition for interlocutory appeal. Discovery regardingthe new plaintiffs and other matters has been completed.In the first quarter of 2012, plaintiffs filed a renewed motionfor class certification. The parties attended mediation and, inthe second quarter of 2012, reached an agreement on the materialterms of a settlement. The parties entered into a settlementagreement and received preliminary approval from the Court in thesecond quarter of 2012. The court entered a judgment and a finalapproval order on September 25, 2012. The effective date of thesettlement agreement was October 29, 2012. The estimatedliability recorded based on the terms of the settlement agreementdid not have a material effect on the consolidated results of theCompany.FIORUCCI FOODS: Recalls 2,650 Lbs. of Mortadella------------------------------------------------Fiorucci Foods, Inc., a South Chesterfield, Virginiaestablishment, is recalling approximately 2,650 pounds ofmortadella because the product contains pistachio nuts, a knownallergen, that are not declared on the label, the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)announced.The products subject to recall include: * Cases containing two (2), 6-8 lb. bulk deli packages of "BLACK BEAR OF THE BLACK FOREST MORTADELLA" with an identifying case code of "510411." These products were shipped to retailers in New Jersey and New York. * Cases containing two (2), 5-7 lb. bulk deli packages of "COLOSSEUM MORTADELLA" with an identifying case code of "50405." These products were shipped to distributors in Miami, Florida, and Chicago, Illinois.Both products subject to recall were produced on November 10,2012, and bear the establishment number "EST. 4058" inside theUSDA mark of inspection with a sell by date of February 10, 2013.Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_080_2012_Release/index.aspThe problem was discovered by the Company, who notified FSIS. TheCompany produces mortadella with and without pistachios, and hascorrect labels for both products. This problem occurred when thelabel for the product without pistachios was incorrectly placed onproduct containing pistachios. FSIS and the Company have receivedno reports of adverse reactions this time. Anyone concerned aboutan injury or illness from consumption of these products shouldcontact a healthcare provider.FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers. When available, the retail distributionlist will be posted on FSIS' Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/>Open_Federal_Cases/index.aspConsumers and news reporters with questions should contact thecompany's recall hotline at (804) 876-0584.Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day atwww.AskKaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are availableMonday 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 bereached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday throughFriday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours aday.GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Faces Class Action Over Drywall Price-Fixing------------------------------------------------------------Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that Drywall installerSierra Drywall Systems Inc. hit Georgia-Pacific LLC, AmericanGypsum Company LLC, and seven other defendants with a putativeclass action in Chicago on Dec. 13, accusing them of conspiring tojack up drywall prices.Arizona-based Sierra Drywall said the nine defendants colluded tofix and raise prices for gypsum board -- also called drywall orsheetrock -- starting with large, coordinated price hikes thattook effect in January, allegedly resulting in the plaintiff andother direct purchasers paying inflated prices.HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois------------------------------------------------------------Hospira, Inc. continues to defend itself from a securities classaction lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the Company'sNovember 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.Hospira and certain of its corporate officers and former corporateofficers are defendants in a lawsuit alleging violations of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934: City of Sterling HeightsGeneral Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. MichaelBall, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B.Begley, amended complaint filed June 25, 2012, and pending in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois. The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the defendantsissued materially false and misleading statements regardingHospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclosematerial facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. Thelawsuit alleges a class period from February 4, 2010 (announcementof Q4, 2009 financial results) through October 17, 2011 (Hospiraannounced preliminary financial results for Q3, 2011 on October18, 2011). The lawsuit seeks class action status and damagesincluding interest, attorneys' fees and costs.HOSPIRA INC: ERISA Violation Class Suit Dismissed in October------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit against Hospira, Inc. alleging violationof the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 wasdismissed in October 2012, according to the Company's November 7,2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.Hospira, certain members of Hospira's Board of Directors and othercurrent or former Hospira employees were named as defendants in alawsuit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The lawsuit, Veronica Lynch,Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and onbehalf of the Hospira 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan v. Hospira,Inc., Pamela Hannon, Henry A. Weishaar, Lori O. Carlson, RichardJ. Hoffman, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directorsof Hospira, Inc., Roger W. Hale, Connie R. Curran, Jacque J.Sokolov and Heino von Prondzynski, was filed June 11, 2012, in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Illinoisand alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, generally alleging thatHospira stock was not a prudent investment for 401(k)participants. The lawsuit sought class action status, equitablerelief and monetary damages.On October 2, 2012, the case was dismissed in its entirety.LEBEAU INC: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages-------------------------------------------------------Will Astor, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports thatJames LeBeau shorted them on pay, a group of the local promoter'scurrent and former workers claim in a class-action complaint filedlast week in federal court.Mr. Lebeau heads LeBeau Inc. and does business as BeauProductions. His company manages Frontier Field and LeBeau is thestadium director. His company also mounts the Lilac Festival andother events.A seven-member group, including six ex-LeBeau Inc. employees andone current Frontier Field worker, claims in a class-action suitfiled on Dec. 11 in U.S. District Court in Rochester that LeBeaufailed to pay full wages due them.The suit names LeBeau Inc., Mr. LeBeau as the firm's president andLeBeau Inc. vice president Susan LeBeau as defendants.In all, a minimum of 50 individuals could join the class action,the complaint states.The wage-and-hour claim comes three months after the stateDepartment of Labor launched a probe of LeBeau Inc. over allegedviolations of the state's prevailing wage law at Frontier Field.The prevailing wage statute states contractors and subcontractorsworking under a public works project must pay certain minimumhourly wage rates known as prevailing wages. The state-set ratesvary for workers in various job categories and vary by county.The basic prevailing hourly rate for a Monroe County floormechanic, for example, is $24.12. The same job's prevailing ratein Chemung County is $25 an hour.Some wage-and-hour suits plaintiffs are also complainants in theprevailing wage investigation, said the class-action plaintiffs'attorney, Robert Mullin of Ferr & Mullin in Fishers. The two setsof claims cover some of the same ground but are not directlyrelated, he said.The class-action alleges two types of violation: Festival and airshow workers say they were paid for all the hours they worked butdid not get overtime pay for weeks when they put in more than 40hours. Frontier Field workers claim that under state and federallabor laws they were supposed to be paid by the hour but werewrongly treated as salaried workers.LOCAL SERVICE: Colo. Court Rules on Elbert County Zoning Dispute----------------------------------------------------------------Colorado District Judge Lewis T. Babcock granted a motion forsummary judgment filed by the Board of County Commissioners ofElbert County on claims asserted by Kenneth G. Rohrbach, Karen L.Rohrbach, Paul K. Rohrbach, and Compost Express, Inc., in a zoningdispute. The Court, however, denied the BOCC's motion for summaryjudgment on the claims asserted by Onyx Properties LLC, EmeraldProperties LLC, Valley Bank and Trust, Paul and Shauna Naftel, andthe Estate of Local Service Corporation.The dispute follows a decision in which the Colorado Court ofAppeals reversed a trial court ruling that the BOCC proved thatthe Rohrbachs' property -- located in Elbert County -- was zoned"A-Agriculture" in a zoning enforcement action brought by the BOCCseeking to enjoin the Rohrbachs from operating a commercialcomposting business on that property. A panel of the Court ofAppeals determined that the relevant zoning regulation, whichpurported to establish the zoning areas in Elbert County, couldnot be used to ascertain the applicable zoning of the Rohrbachs'property.Following the ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals, Onyx et al.filed a lawsuit against the BOCC in June 2010. Onyx et al. ownedlarge tracts of property in Elbert County that they sought todivide into 35-acre parcels for development and sale in 2004-2006.The property known as Kiowa Creek Estates was owned by OnyxProperties, Emerald Properties, and Paul & Shauna Naftel. Theproperty known as Wolf Creek Ranches & Wolf Creek Estates wasowned by Local Service Corporation and, later, by Valley Bank andTrust. The BOCC required both developments to proceed through are-zoning process. Ultimately, in two separate applications, WolfCreek Ranches & Wolf Creek Estates were re-zoned from "A-Agriculture" to an "A-1" designation in October 2004 and November2004. Kiowa Creek Estates was subsequently re-zoned from "A-Agriculture" to an "A-1" designation in September 2006.In their lawsuit, Onyx et al. assert individual claims under 42U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for the loss of their individual property rights,without due process of law, by the BOCC's alleged illegalenforcement of its invalid zoning regulations and related map inthe re-zoning process. They also asserted class claims, forviolations of the class' constitutional rights, on behalf "of allpersons who have on or after Aug. 28, 1997 (1) submitted anapplication for an A-1 rezone; and (2) all persons who have hadthe A-1 provisions of the Zoning Regulations . . . enforcedagainst them regarding the A-1 zone."The Rohrbachs also filed a federal lawsuit in September 2011seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of dueprocess, against the BOCC for enforcement of its allegedunconstitutional and non-existent zoning regulations. Theirfederal lawsuit was subsequently consolidated into the Onyx case.The cases before the District Court are, ONYX PROPERTIES LLC, aColorado Limited Liability Company; EMERALD PROPERTIES, LLC, aColorado Limited Liability Company; VALLEY BANK AND TRUST, aColorado State Bank; PAUL NAFTEL, an individual; SHAUNA NAFTEL, anindividual; and The Estate of LOCAL SERVICE CORPORATION by andthrough its Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee, SIMON E. RODRIGUEZ,Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ELBERT COUNTY,Defendant; and KENNETH G. ROHRBACH, KAREN L. ROHRBACH, PAUL K.ROHRBACH, and COMPOST EXPRESS, INC., a Colorado corporation,Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ELBERT COUNTY, inits official capacity, Defendant, Civil Case No. 10-cv-01482-LTB-KLM, Consolidated w/11-cv-02321-RPM-MJW (D. Colo.).A copy of Judge Babcock's Dec. 12, 2012 Order is available athttp://is.gd/1ue7zTfrom Leagle.com Local Service Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr.D. Colo. Case No. 08-15543) on April 25, 2008. In June 2010, theU.S. Trustee's Office appointed Simon Rodriguez as the Chapter 11trustee for the LSC estate.John D. Watson, who held stock interests in LSC, is a debtor in aseparate Chapter 7 case. Jeffrey A. Weinman was appointed as theChapter 7 trustee for Mr. Watson's bankruptcy estate (Bankr. D.Colo. Case No. 07-21077) in February 2008. Mr. Weinman became thesole board member of LSC, elected himself President, and wasauthorized to make decisions for LSC.MONSTER BEVERAGE: Sued in Calif. Over Mislabeling of Energy Drink-----------------------------------------------------------------Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that the beleagueredMonster Beverage Corp. was slapped with a proposed class action inCalifornia on Dec. 12 that accuses the company of labeling itsenergy drinks as supplements in order to escape federal safetyregulations for beverages.The ingredients in conventional beverages are subject to U.S. Foodand Drug Administration food additive programs before they hit themarket, according to a complaint filed in federal court byplaintiff Alec Fisher. But even though Monster labels its drinksas supplements, the company never refers to the products assupplements.NASDAQ OMX: Defends Class Action Suits Over Facebook IPO--------------------------------------------------------The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. is defending lawsuits arising fromFacebook Inc.'s initial public offering, according to theCompany's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.In the second quarter of 2012, the Company became a party toseveral legal and regulatory proceedings relating to the initialpublic offering of Facebook that occurred on May 18, 2012. TheCompany is defendants in the following putative class actions inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork: Goldberg, et al. v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and TheNASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Yan v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and TheNASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Alfonso, et al. v. The NASDAQ StockMarket LLC and The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., Levy v. The NASDAQStock Market LLC and The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., Amin v. TheNASDAQ Stock Market LLC and The OMX Group, Inc., Steinman v. TheNASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Roderickv. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,McGinty v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,Zack v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock MarketLLC, Eagan v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ StockMarket LLC, and First New York Securities LLC, et al. v. NASDAQOMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. Ten of theselawsuits have been brought by retail investors seeking damages foralleged negligence by the Company in connection with the FacebookIPO. The eleventh lawsuit was brought by professional proprietarytrading firms for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, promulgatedunder the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with theFacebook IPO.The Company is a defendant in three other lawsuits brought byindividual investors, seeking damages for alleged negligence andfraud by the Company in connection with the Facebook IPO.The Company also received a demand letter from a memberorganization, seeking indemnification for alleged lossesassociated with the Facebook IPO. No complaint has been filed inthis matter.The Company believes that these lawsuits and the demand arewithout merit and intends to defend them vigorously. As such, theCompany has not recorded a reserve as it is not probable that aliability has been incurred and the amount of loss cannot bereasonably estimated as of the date of these condensedconsolidated financial statements.NOKIA: New York Securities Class Action Withdrawn-------------------------------------------------Telecompaper reports that a class action complaint filed by thefirm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd against Nokia in the US DistrictCourt of New York on May 3 has been withdrawn. The lawsuit onbehalf of Nokia shareholders accused certain of the company'sofficers and directors with violations of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 during the period October 26, 2011 to April 10, 2012.The company allegedly told investors that Nokia's conversion tothe Windows platform would halt its deteriorating position in thesmartphone market. However, it became clear this was not the casewhen on April 11 Nokia disclosed that its first-quarterperformance would be worse than expected, the lawsuit claimed.After further investigation, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismissthe case against all defendants without any compensation beingpaid to any plaintiff or their counsel by any defendant, Nokiasaid.OCEAN BEAUTY: Recalls Nathan's/LASCCO Cold Smoked Atlantic Salmon-----------------------------------------------------------------Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC is voluntarily recalling 371 cases ofready-to-eat cold smoked salmon products because of possiblecontamination by Listeria monocytogenes.The recalled products, "Nathan's Brand 3oz Cold Smoked AtlanticSalmon" (Product of Chile) and "LASCCO Cold Smoked Nova AtlanticSalmon 4 oz" (Product of Chile) were distributed to variousretailers and distribution centers in WA, OR, CA, AZ, TX, CO, MA,NH, CT, RI, NJ, and NY from 11/20/2012 through 12/12/2012.Potentially affected product is limited to packages bearing thefollowing codes: PACK BRAND ITEM UPC CODE VOLUME ----- ---------------- --------------- ---- ------ Lascco 4 oz Nova Salmon 0 72840 01751 7 285 96 cases Nathan's 3 oz Nova Salmon 0 73030 80368 2 285 275 casesPictures of the recalled products' labels are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm332355.htmOcean Beauty Seafoods has notified the retailers and distributorswho may have received the listed affected product, and is takingthis action as a precautionary measure in cooperation with theU.S. Food and Drug Administration. No other Ocean Beauty productsare included in this action. There have been no complaints orillnesses reported in association with this recall.The potential for contamination was noted after internal testingby the company revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes insamples of the specific code dates identified above. Nathan's andLascco brand products that do not have the specific package codeidentified above are not affected.Consumers can identify if they have purchased an impacted productby looking at the package code date located in the back, top leftcorner of the package. Consumers who have affected product withthe package codes identified above should not eat the product.Consumers should discard any open packages of affected product andshould return unopened packages to the place of purchase for arefund.Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious andsometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderlypeople, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthyindividuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as highfever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain anddiarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages andstillbirths among pregnant women. Anyone who is concerned about apossible health problem or illness should contact a healthcareprovider immediately.PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Refuses to Reopen $10-Bil. Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a multibillion-dollar class action against tobacco giant Philip Morris cannot bereopened, a Madison County judge said.Judge Dennis Ruth found that the plaintiffs failed to show thatinformation revealed in subsequent cases would not have changedthe outcome.Plaintiffs' attorneys in August asked the judge to reopen thecase.The case, which claimed that Philip Morris violated Illinois lawby marketing "light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" cigarettes ashealthier options, was originally filed in 2000. It made nationalheadlines in 2003 when now-retired Judge Nicholas Byron ordered$10.1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages.It was the first time a tobacco company lost a consumer fraudcase, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment in 2005. Thecourt agreed with defense arguments that the Federal TradeCommission had authorized the wording for cigarette descriptions.The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the verdict in 2006,causing the case to be dismissed.PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Awaits Court Rulings in TCPA Violations MDL---------------------------------------------------------------Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. is awaiting court decisions onpending motions in the multidistrict litigation pending inCalifornia alleging violations of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended September 30, 2012.The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putativeclass action cases, each alleging that the Company violated theTelephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'cellular telephones without their prior express consent. OnDecember 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these mattersinto one consolidated proceeding in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of California. On June 22, 2012,the putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaintin the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates,LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 ("MDL action"). The Company filed a motion to dismiss theconsolidated complaint. On October 9, 2012, the plaintiffs fileda motion requesting leave to file an amended consolidatedcomplaint. A hearing on both motions was scheduled forNovember 26, 2012.On October 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of California in the matter ofMeyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01008,which imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Companyfrom using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls tocellular telephones with California area codes that were obtainedthrough skip-tracing. On October 26, 2012, the Company filed apetition seeking a rehearing en banc before the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Meyer is one of the casesincluded in the MDL action. Both Meyer and the MDL action areongoing and no final determination on the merits in either hasbeen made.SALT LAKE CITY, UT: ACLU Files Class Action Over "Gang Sweep"-------------------------------------------------------------Brooke Adams, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that theAmerican Civil Liberties Union filed a proposed class-actionlawsuit on Dec. 13 over a "gang sweep" two years ago at West HighSchool in Salt Lake City, during which between 14 and 40 studentsof color were detained, questioned and falsely accused of beinggang members.Defendants in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court are thepolice departments for Salt Lake City, West Jordan and West Valleycities; the Unified Police Department's Metro Gang Unit, Salt LakeCounty and Salt Lake City School District officials.The lawsuit alleges the action violated state and federalconstitutional rights. It was filed by the local and nationaloffices of the ACLU, who are representing the father of one boydetained in the sweep.Jason Olsen, spokesman for the Salt Lake City School District,said the district doesn't comment on lawsuits or litigation.Detective Mike Hamideh, spokesman for the Salt Lake City PoliceDepartment, also declined comment.According to the complaint, a gang task force of 16 officersinterrogated students at West High School in December 2010 and putinformation about them in a gang database that potentially couldsubject them to additional police scrutiny. The complaint sayspolice denied students' requests to call their parents or leavethe room. It also alleges the district's anti-gang policy isunconstitutionally vague.Kaleb Winston, then 14 and a freshman at West High, was among thestudents questioned. Two plain-clothed officers approached him inthe cafeteria and asked to speak to him; the teenager thought theywere teachers. The officers took Mr. Winston to a nearby room andaccused him of graffiti vandalism, which the teen denied.As the questioning continued, Mr. Winston got upset and tried toleave but an officer told him to "quit acting tough" and grabbedhis arm, leaving a small red bruise. He was then taken to adetention room, where officers searched his graffiti-patternedbackpack and questioned him about drawings on a sketch pad he usedin an art class, claiming the images resembled gang insignia.Mr. Winston, who is bi-racial, denied any gang affiliation, butthe officers accused him of tagging sites around the school. Theymade the boy hold a plate like those used when offenders arebooked into jail that read, "My name is Kaleb Winston and I am agang tagger." Officers then told the teen they would keep a fileon him.The boy's parents said he was in tears when he arrived home afterschool and felt bullied by police.A police spokesman said at the time that the school had asked thecity's gang unit for help because of an increase of graffiti and"gang attire" at the campus, and the officers' goal was to makecontact with students and steer them in the right direction.When Kevin Winston and his wife Lisa objected to how their son wastreated, they were told his blue clothing and style of dressing --baggy basketball shirts and basketball shoes -- signaled he wasthe "type" to be a gang member. The complaint says officers toldKaleb's mother that the purpose of the raid was address a "problemwith the Mexicans" at West High and that she had "her head up herass" if she did not know her son was a gang tagger. Theysuggested he changed clothes when not home to fool them.At the time, Kaleb worked in the school cafeteria, was a refereefor the county's recreational Junior Jazz basketball program andhad won an academic award for improving his grades. He has nojuvenile record.But the experience affected him. His grades have fallen and hehad given up drawing. Kaleb temporarily transferred out of WestHigh, but has since returned and is now a junior at the school.He fears police and struggles with his racial identity now, thecomplaint states."I am bringing this case because I want to help make sure thatwhat happened to me doesn't happen to any other student," KalebWinston said in a press release.All of the students questioned in 2010 were of Latino, African-American or Pacific Island descent, the complaint states."Schools should be a place where everyone can learn and grow, nota location where students of color are targeted and harassed,"said Courtney Bowie, senior staff attorney with the ACLU RacialJustice Program, in a statement announcing the lawsuit.SOUNDBITE COMMS: Class Action Over TCPA Violations Dismissed------------------------------------------------------------SoundBite Communications, a provider of customer experiencemanagement solutions, announced that they received notificationthat the class action suit filed January 11, 2012 in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Californiaagainst Bank of America and SoundBite as co-defendants has beendismissed. The class action lawsuit was aimed at the ambiguity inthe Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related to textmessaging.The announcement followed another major, and related, win for theCompany with the favorable ruling received from the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) on November 29, 2012 onSoundBite's February 2012 Petition for Declaratory Ruling. Theruling clarifies that sending a single opt-out confirmation aftera consumer opts out of receiving text messages from a company doesnot violate the TCPA. The ambiguity surrounding the TCPA beforethe ruling in November was the crux of the class action suit."SoundBite championed the cause of consumers and businesses alikeby filing the petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC. It'sa common sense best practice to let consumers know that their opt-out message requests are properly recorded, confirmed, andexecuted," stated Jim Milton, president and CEO of SoundBiteCommunications. "We are pleased that the recent FCC rulingremoves not only the ambiguity many companies faced, enabling usto provide the best consumer experience possible, but it alsoclarifies the TCPA interpretation thus removing an important basisfor lawsuits such as these."Bob Leahy, COO and CFO of SoundBite, added, "SoundBite dedicatedsignificant resources including incurring litigation andassociated costs during 2012 to fight this battle on behalf ofconsumers, our clients, the industry, and of course ourshareholders. SoundBite has taken a leadership position infighting this litigation and intends to continue to champion forconsumer best practices. This effort was successfully completedon two fronts -- with superb assistance from both our attorneys atPatton Boggs LLP who helped navigate our FCC petition, and ourattorneys at Cooley LLP who led our defense against thelitigation. By having the lawsuit dismissed we are in an improvedposition of closing the year on a high note with some of ourregulatory headwinds and legal expenses behind us."SOUTHERN CO: Appeal From Amended "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending---------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit arisingfrom Hurricane Katrina remains pending, according to The SouthernCompany's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofMississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residentsseeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries causedby Hurricane Katrina. In 2006, the plaintiffs amended thecomplaint to include Southern Company and many other electricutilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climatechange, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofMississippi dismissed the case. On appeal to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the fullU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed theplaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision ofthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippiin favor of the defendants. In May 2011, the plaintiffs filed anamended version of their class action complaint, arguing that theearlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under Mississippilaw the plaintiffs have a right to re-file. The amended complaintwas also filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and utilitycompanies, including Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,Gulf Power Company and Southern Power Company.On March 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Mississippi dismissed the plaintiffs' amendedcomplaint. On April 16, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the case tothe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Each Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes thatthese claims are without merit. While each Southern Companyentity named in the lawsuit believes the likelihood of loss isremote based on existing case law, it is not possible to predictwith certainty whether any Southern Company entity named in thelawsuit will incur any liability in connection with this matter.The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at thistime.Atlanta-based The Southern Company --http://www.southerncompany.com/-- is an energy company serving the Southeast. A leading U.S. producer of electricity, SouthernCompany businesses include electric utilities in four states and agrowing competitive generation company, as well as fiber opticsand wireless communications.TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in Puerto Rican Dentists' Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Triple-S Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on amotion for class certification in the lawsuit commenced by thePuerto Rico Dentists Association, according to the Company'sNovember 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaintin the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operatingin Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage. The Company andtwo of its subsidiaries, Triple-S Salud, Inc. ("TSS") and Triple-C, Inc. ("TCI"), were included as defendants. This litigationpurports to be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto Ricodentists who are similarly situated.The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and aspart of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminishthe payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timelyand complete manner for the covered medically necessary servicesthey render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, thePuerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of$150 million. In addition, the complaint claims that the PuertoRico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an allegedconspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the requestfor class certification and the merits. The Company intends tovigorously defend this claim.Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside PuertoRico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which theplaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,opposed. Following months of jurisdictional proceedings in thefederal court system, the federal district court in Puerto Ricodecided to retain jurisdiction on February 8, 2011. Thedefendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits,because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief canbe granted. On August 31, 2011, the District Court dismissed allof plaintiffs' claims except for its breach of contract claim, andordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the court stillhas federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of2005. Plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its August 31,2011 decision and the defendants did the same, arguing that thebreach of contract claim failed to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. On May 2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs'motion. On May 31, 2012, plaintiffs appealed the District Court'sdismissal of their complaint and the denial of plaintiffs' motionfor reconsideration. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuitdismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On September 25,2012 the District Court denied without prejudice the defendants'motion for reconsideration. On October 10, 2012 the parties filedtheir briefs with respect to class certification and are waitingfor the court's decision.Triple-S Management Corporation --http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. It is aplayer in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico. Triple-SManagement also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross BlueShield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. VirginIslands. With more than 50 years of experience in the industry,Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care andrelated products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage marketsunder the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its subsidiaryTriple-S Salud, Inc. and effective February 2011, also offers non-branded Medicare products through American Health Inc. Inaddition to its managed care business, Triple-S Managementprovides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property andcasualty insurance in Puerto Rico.TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: TSP Still Defends Two Vehicle Owner Suits--------------------------------------------------------------A subsidiary of Triple-S Management Corporation continues todefend itself against two class action lawsuits brought by motorvehicle owners in Puerto Rico, according to the Company's November7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motorvehicle owners, filed an action in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto RicoJoint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 18 other defendants,including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violationsunder the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")and the local statute against organized crime and moneylaundering. JUA is a private association created by law toadminister a compulsory public liability insurance program formotor vehicles in Puerto Rico ("CLI"). As required by itsenabling act, JUA is composed of all the insurers that underwriteprivate motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed theminimum underwriting percentage established in such act. TSP is amember of JUA.In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. JointUnderwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that thedefendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of theCLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of thePuerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that becausethe defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costsallegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for suchcosts constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffsalso claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICOthrough various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motorvehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion ofthe CLI premiums for their benefit.Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amountingto $406.6 million, treble damages under RICO, and equitablerelief, including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgmentbarring defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, alongwith costs and attorneys' fees.On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed ajoint motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs' claims arebarred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch a lawsuit cannot bebrought, even under RICO, to amend the compulsory liabilityinsurance rates that were approved by the Puerto Rico Legislatureand the Commissioner of Insurance. The motion also argues thatsince RICO is not a federal statute that specifically relates tothe business of insurance, and its application in the claims atissue would frustrate state policy and interfere with PuertoRico's insurance administrative regime, the McCarran-Ferguson Actprecludes plaintiffs' claims. Finally, TSP argued that plaintiffsfailed to allege the necessary elements of an actionable RICOclaim, or, in the alternative, their damages claim is time barred.On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of the Company's motion todismiss. The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. OnOctober 2, 2012, the court issued an order certifying the class.On October 12, 2012, several defendants, including TSP, filed anappeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District,requesting the court to vacate the District Court's certificationorder.A similar case entitled Maria Margarita Collazo Burgos, et al. v.La Asociacion de Suscripcion Conjunta del Seguro deResponsabilidad Obligatorio ("JUA"), et al., was filed against JUAand its members, including TSP, in the Puerto Rico Court of FirstInstance, San Juan Part on January 28, 2010. This litigation is aputative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of motor vehicleowners in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege thateach of the defendants engaged in similar activities and conductas those alleged in the Torres Ronda litigation and claim therecovery of $225 million for the class pertaining to theacquisition and administration costs of the CLI, allegedly chargedin violation of the Puerto Rico Insurance Code's provisionsprohibiting the illegal traffic of premiums. TSP is vigorouslycontesting this action.Given the early stage of these cases, the Company says it cannotassess the probability of an adverse outcome, or the reasonablefinancial impact that any such outcome may have on the Company.The Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.Triple-S Management Corporation --http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. It is aplayer in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico. Triple-SManagement also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross BlueShield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. VirginIslands. With more than 50 years of experience in the industry,Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care andrelated products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage marketsunder the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its subsidiaryTriple-S Salud, Inc. and effective February 2011, also offers non-branded Medicare products through American Health Inc. Inaddition to its managed care business, Triple-S Managementprovides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property andcasualty insurance in Puerto Rico.UNITED STATES: Justice Dept. Has Not Yet Appealed "Beer" Ruling---------------------------------------------------------------Jesse J. Holland, writing for The Associated Press, reports thatwith the nation teetering on an economic "fiscal cliff," federaljudges may soon force Congress to dedicate possibly millions ofdollars to what some of those same judges must consider a worthycause: their own salaries.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Octoberordered Congress to pay six federal judges years of back pay. Nowa group of federal judges is pushing a class-action lawsuit toensure all of the rest of the federal judges who also missed outon their cost-of-living increases get what they feel is their due.It's a touchy subject: One set of federal judges asking anotherset to essentially approve salary increases for everyone. Though,of course, Congress also ultimately controls its own salaries.Congress in 1989 limited federal judges' ability to earn moneyoutside of their work on the bench and in exchange provided whatwas supposed to be automatic cost-of-living increases to judicialsalaries to ensure inflation wouldn't erode the value of thosesalaries over time.U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson Jr. of Texas, one of the judgesseeking class-action status, called that a "binding commitment"made by the legislative branch for the judicial branch to "receivethe same yearly COLAs awarded to all other federal employees, tokeep us even with inflation."But instead of following through, Congress withheld those cost-of-living increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010, whilegiving other federal employees their promised increases. "In ourview, the exclusion is contrary to the commitment to us, so wehave sued to enforce it," said Judge Furgeson, a senior judge whoalso serves as the president of the Federal Judges Association.The Constitution, the judges say, is on their side. TheConstitution says compensation for federal judges "shall not bediminished during their continuance in office," so the judges saydenying them a promised cost-of-living increase violates theConstitution's Compensation Clause.And now a federal appeals court is on their side."Congress' acts in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 constituteunconstitutional diminishments of judicial compensation," theappeals court said in its October order, adding that money alsowas due that had been withheld in 2007 and 2010. "As relief,appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the diminishedamounts they would have been paid if Congress had not withheld thesalary adjustments."However, the appeals court's decision only applied to those judgeswho sued in the Beer v. United States case, so Judge Furgeson andanother group of judges are trying to get a class-action lawsuitapproved so they can get the missed salary adjustments for morethan 1,000 other current and former federal judges who courtpapers say would have been eligible.Their success will depend on whether the Beer decision holds up ifchallenged at the Supreme Court. So far, the Justice Departmenthas not yet decided whether to appeal the federal circuit court'sruling to the Supreme Court, a spokeswoman said.The entire federal bench would benefit from the success of aclass-action lawsuit, which would include "all persons who areserving or who served as United States judges under Article III ofthe Constitution."VENOCO INC: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Delaware----------------------------------------------------------------Venoco, Inc. is defending a consolidated merger-related lawsuit inDelaware, according to the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2012.In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then-chairman and chiefexecutive officer of the Company, submitted a nonbinding proposalto the board of directors of the Company to acquire all of theshares of the Company he does not beneficially own for $12.50 pershare in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of thatproposal, four lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court ofChancery in 2011 against the Company and each of its directors byshareholders alleging that the Company and its directors hadbreached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connectionwith the Marquez Proposal. A fifth lawsuit filed in 2011, also inthe Delaware Court of Chancery, named only Mr. Marquez as adefendant. On January 16, 2012, the Company announced it hadentered into a merger agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain ofhis affiliates pursuant to which, at closing, each of theshareholders other than Mr. Marquez and his affiliates wouldreceive $12.50 for each share of Company stock (the "Merger").Following announcement of the merger agreement, four additionallawsuits were filed in Delaware and three lawsuits were filed infederal court in Colorado naming as defendants the Company andeach of its directors. Each action seeks certification as a classaction. Plaintiffs in both the Delaware and Colorado actionschallenge the Merger and allege, among other things, that theconsideration paid was inadequate. The complaints filed inDelaware were consolidated. The Colorado actions have beenadministratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware case.The Company has reviewed the allegations contained in thecomplaints and believes they are without merit.VIRGINIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Medical Care Suit v. FCCW--------------------------------------------------------Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federaljudge refused to dismiss a class action alleging that a women'sprison in Virginia fails to treat medical conditions as a way tocut costs.Five prisoners at Fluvanna Correction Center for Women (FCCW) inTroy, Va., are leading the charge against the Virginia Departmentof Corrections (VDOC), which they say routinely violates EighthAmendment rights and shows deliberate indifference to medicalneeds.U.S. District Judge Norman Moon denied the state's motion todismiss on Dec. 11."Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of cost-saving concerns,medical personnel at FCCW 'have failed, or refused, to invest thetime or effort required to acknowledge, examine, diagnose andtreat them with respect to existing or potentially serious medicalproblems and concerns,'" he wrote. "Indeed, the complaint isreplete with specific examples of how Plaintiffs have beenadversely affected as a result of this concern."Officials with the Virginia Department of Corrections allegedlyreceived hundreds of grievances, which should have notified themof a continuing problem at the prison facility, the decisionstates."Given that plaintiffs have alleged that the VDOC defendantsremained inactive despite personal knowledge of informationdisclosing alleged ongoing deficiencies in medical care,plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim may proceed against themdirectly," Judge Moon wrote.The complaint describes how the prison failed to give the properdosage of medication prescribed to Cynthia Scott after she wasdiagnosed with sarcoidosis, a disease that formed nodules in herlungs, spleen and liver. Ms. Scott also allegedly developed ablood clot in her leg that was left untreated until it traveled toher lungs.Bobinette Fearce, a second named plaintiff, says she hasdegenerative disc disease, causing her chronic pain. The prisondoctors allegedly refused to give her enough Tylenol to alleviateher pain. She also claims to suffer from incontinence and mustwear a diaper at all times, but an FCCW doctor said she is "'tooold' to be afforded the surgery that would correct her bladdercondition."Patricia Knight says that a stroke caused her to lose gripstrength and made walking difficult. Because her conditionsallegedly prevent her from performing any prison job, Ms. Knightsays she cannot afford the $5 "co-pay" for prison medical visitsand therefore gets little medical care.Marguerite Richardson says she visited the medical staff when shedeveloped a number of boils on her leg. A test found that she hada highly contagious antibiotic-resistant infection, but the prisonwaited five months to give her medication to treat the infection,the complaint states.Rebecca Scott, the fifth plaintiff, allegedly suffers fromrecurring tonsillitis. She says an FCCW doctor told her he "'doesnot believe in' removal of tonsils by surgery," that the prisonhas rejected her requests to see an outside specialist.A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Scott, et al. v. Clarke, etal., Case No. 12-cv-00036 (W.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/14/prisoners.pdfVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Stueve Siegel Hanson's Legal Fees Challenged--------------------------------------------------------------Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports thata case before the Missouri Supreme Court addresses whether it isreasonable for a Kansas City plaintiff law firm to receive as muchas $6 million in compensation for negotiating a settlement thathas paid its clients only about $125,000.The state Supreme Court heard arguments on Dec. 10 in a casechallenging fees awarded to Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP for a class-action case against Volkswagen Group of America Inc. The case --and another in Kansas -- has forced the firm to defend what it ispaid to take on risky cases.WALT DISNEY: Settles Class Action; Awaits Court Approval--------------------------------------------------------Alex Ben Block, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that aclaim against the Walt Disney Co. for intentionally failing to payabout 30 current and former employees overtime wages and providebreaks they were entitled to has been settled out of court, but aclass action suit was still filed on Dec. 13 so that a L.A.Superior Court judge can certify the settlement, according toDennis Moss, an attorney in the case.The Walt Disney Co. will not admit any liability, according toMr. Moss, but will pay a settlement and penalties that he wouldnot specify. The case is expected to go before the judge to becertified sometime in 2013.A Disney corporate spokesman did not respond to a request forcomment prior to publication.Mr. Moss represents Katherine Clay, who in the suit says she was asenior financial analyst for Disney. She and all of thoseinvolved work or worked in various business-related non-managerialjobs such as contract and rights analyst, legal rights residualsanalyst, production library analyst in participation and otherjobs in the department that processes participation, royalties andresidual payments.Mr. Moss describes the class action suit as a follow-up to anotherclass action suit filed by Joseph Peralta and Pamela Ventura inlate 2010 on behalf of 36 salaried employees who worked in arelated department, who argued they had been incorrectlyclassified as managers or "exempt employees" between July 2004 andAugust 2010. That suit was filed in 2011.The latest case involves higher-level workers and covers theperiod of Dec. 1, 2006, through July 20, 2012.Ms. Clay's suit says most of the employees were actually non-exempt. In her case, Ms. Clay says that she was "misclassified"as "exempt," which was Disney's excuse to not pay her overtime andfor giving her deadlines that made it impossible for her to takelunch and other breaks to which she was entitled under Californialabor law."The failure to pay those class members all overtime sums owing tothem upon termination of their employment was willful, andtherefore those class members are also entitled to relief," saysthe suit.In addition to whatever they are owed in unpaid wages, Californialabor law also requires the payment of penalties that range from$50 to $200 for each incident and for each employee. The law saysthat 75 percent of the penalties should be paid to the Labor andWork Force Development Agency, which is part of the state'sDepartment of Industrial Relations.The other 25 percent of the penalties and all of the unpaid wageswill be split among those who sued and their lawyers.In the earlier case, all of the employees' names were listed, andthat led to some of them having problems at work. So in thelatest case, the only name listed is that of Ms. Clay, who nolonger works for Disney.WELLPOINT INC: "ADA" Suit Summary Judgment Affirmed by 11th Cir.----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuitaffirmed in October 2012 the entry of summary judgment againstAmerican Dental Association in favor of WellPoint, Inc.,dismissing the Association's putative class action relating toout-of-network reimbursement of dental claims, according toWellPoint's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.The Company is currently a defendant in a putative class actionrelating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement of dental claimscalled American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks,Inc. and Blue Cross of California. The lawsuit was filed in March2002 by the American Dental Association, and three dentists whoare suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to sue on behalfof a nationwide class of all non-participating dental providerswho were paid less than their actual charges for dental servicesprovided to members of some of the Company's affiliates' andsubsidiaries' dental plans. The dentists sue as purportedassignees of their patients' rights to benefits under theCompany's dental plans. The complaint alleges that the Companybreached its contractual obligations in violation of the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by paying usual,customary and reasonable, or UCR, rates, rather than the dentists'actual charges, allegedly relying on undisclosed, non-existent orflawed UCR data. The plaintiffs claim, among other things, thatthe data failed to account for differences in geography, providerspecialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure.The complaint further alleges that the Company was aware that thedata was inappropriate to set UCR rates and that the Companyroutinely paid OON dentists less than their actual charges,representing that the Company's OON payments were properlydetermined usual, customary and reasonable rates. The lawsuit waspending in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida. On December 23, 2011, the District Courtgranted the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissedthe case. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.On October 23, 2012, the Court affirmed the entry of summaryjudgment in the Company's favor.WELLPOINT INC: Review of "Mell" Suit Dismissal Not Sought---------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v.Anthem, Inc., et al. did not seek further review of the dismissalof their lawsuit, which arises from the demutualization of AnthemInsurance Companies, Inc., according to WellPoint, Inc.'s November7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.The Company is currently defending two certified class actionsfiled as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem InsuranceCompanies, Inc., or AICI, and the initial public offering ofcommon stock, or IPO, for its holding company, Anthem, Inc. (n/k/aWellPoint, Inc.). The lawsuits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc.,or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. The lawsuits are captioned asRonald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. and Mary E. Ormond, etal. v. Anthem, Inc., et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or thePlan, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurancecompany into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company atthe time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs,in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for theirmembership interests in the mutual company. The lawsuitsgenerally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs ordistributed insufficient value to the ESMs. In Gold, crossmotions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied inpart on July 26, 2006, with regard to the issue of sovereignimmunity asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut, orthe State. The court also denied the Company's motion for summaryjudgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The Stateappealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut SupremeCourt. The Company filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunityissue. On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of thetrial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff'sclaims under sovereign immunity and dismissed the Company's cross-appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for furtherproceedings. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification wasgranted on December 15, 2011. The Company intends to vigorouslydefend the Gold lawsuit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot bepresently determined.In the Ormond lawsuit, the Company's motion to dismiss was grantedin part and denied in part on March 31, 2008. The Court dismissedthe claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, forviolation of the Indiana Demutualization Law, for unjustenrichment, and for negligent misrepresentation with respect toESMs residing in Indiana. On September 29, 2009, a class wascertified with respect to some but not all claims asserted in theplaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint. The class consists of allESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut whoreceived cash compensation in connection with the demutualization.The class does not include employers located in Ohio andConnecticut that received cash distributions pursuant to the Plan.On July 1, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting in part anddenying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment. TheCourt held that the Company was entitled to judgment on all ofplaintiffs' claims except those tort claims in connection with thepricing and sizing of the Anthem, Inc. IPO. The parties havereached an agreement to resolve the Ormond lawsuit.On June 15, 2012, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion forpreliminary approval of a $90.0 million cash settlement, includingany amounts to be awarded for attorneys' fees and expenses andother costs to administer the settlement. As a result, during thesix months ended June 30, 2012, the Company recorded selling,general and administrative expense of $90.0 million, or $0.27 perdiluted share, associated with this settlement, which was non-deductible for tax purposes. The Court granted plaintiffs' motionand entered preliminary approval of the settlement on June 18,2012. As a result, the trial that had been set for June 18, 2012,was vacated. The cash settlement was paid on July 3, 2012, intoan escrow account. A final fairness hearing on the settlement washeld on October 25, 2012. The Court approved the settlementagreement and dismissed the matter with prejudice but took theissue of attorneys' fees under advisement.On November 4, 2009, a class was certified in the Ronald E. Mell,Sr., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al. lawsuit. That class consistedof persons who were continuously enrolled in the health benefitplan sponsored by the City of Cincinnati between June 18, 2001,and November 2, 2001. On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an ordergranting the Company's motion for summary judgment. As a result,the Mell lawsuit was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an appealwith the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitCourt. Argument on the appeal was held on January 20, 2012. TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court upheldthe district court's dismissal of the lawsuit on July 25, 2012.The plaintiff's did not file a petition for a writ of certioriwith the United States Supreme Court.WELLPOINT INC: Plaintiffs Amend Out-of-Network MDL Complaint------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned In reWellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation filed afourth amended consolidated complaint in November 2012, accordingto the Company's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.The Company is currently a defendant in eleven putative classactions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement thatwere consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called Inre WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that ispending in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. Theplaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of aputative class of members who received OON services for which thedefendants paid less than billed charges, the American MedicalAssociation, four state medical associations, OON physicians,chiropractors, clinical psychologists, podiatrists,psychotherapists, the American Podiatric Association, CaliforniaChiropractic Association and the California PsychologicalAssociation on behalf of a putative class of all physicians andall non-physician health care providers, and an OON surgicalcenter. In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege thatthe defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,federal regulations, and state law by relying on databasesprovided by Ingenix in determining OON reimbursement. Aconsolidated amended complaint was filed to add allegations in thelawsuit that OON reimbursement was calculated improperly bymethodologies other than the Ingenix databases. The Company fileda motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Themotion was granted in part and denied in part. The court gave theplaintiffs permission to replead many of those claims that weredismissed. The plaintiffs then filed a third amended consolidatedcomplaint repleading some of the claims that had been dismissedwithout prejudice and adding additional statements in an attemptto bolster other claims. The Company filed a motion to dismissthe third amended consolidated complaint, which was granted inpart and denied in part. The plaintiffs filed a fourth amendedconsolidated complaint on November 5, 2012. The OON surgicalcenter voluntarily dismissed their claims. Fact discovery iscomplete.At the end of 2009, the Company filed a motion in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or theFlorida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctorsand doctors of osteopathy and certain medical associations basedon prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011, and thatcourt ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that arebarred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition fordeclaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claimsare not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. TheCompany filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action,which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of thedeclaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for theEleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoinedphysicians have not yet dismissed their claims. The Florida Courtfound the enjoined physicians in contempt and sanctioned them onJuly 25, 2012. The barred physicians are paying the sanctions.The Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits; however,their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.WELLS FARGO: Accused of Contacting Class Without Prior Consent--------------------------------------------------------------Madeline Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:12-cv-06030 (N.D.Calif., November 28, 2012) accuses Wells Fargo of perpetratingillegal actions in negligently, knowingly, and willfullycontacting the Plaintiff and Class Members on their cellulartelephones without their prior express consent within the meaningof the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.Notwithstanding its prior violations of the TCPA and the FederalCommunication Commission's 2008 citation, Wells Fargo hascontinued to violate the TCPA by contacting her and otherssimilarly situated on their cellular telephones via an "automatictelephone dialing system," without their prior express consent,Ms. Martin alleges. She contends that she brings this action forinjunctive relief and statutory damages resulting from WellsFargo's illegal actions.Ms. Martin is a resident of Calabasas, California.Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services companyheadquartered in San Francisco, California. Wells Fargo providesfinancial services to individuals, businesses, and institutions inall counties within the state of California as well as in mostother states. The financial services offered by Wells Fargo toconsumers include credit card and checking accounts.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Selbin, Esq. Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Robert L. Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Assal Assassi, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP 2700 North Main Street, Suite 1000 Santa Ana, CA 92866 Telephone: (800) 400-6806 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com GROUP: Appeal in Contingent Compensation Suit Withdrawn--------------------------------------------------------------A class member withdrew its appeal from the final approval ofWillis Group Holdings Public Limited Company's settlement of alawsuit over contingent compensation agreements, according to theCompany's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.Since August 2004, the Company and its subsidiary Hills Rogal &Hobbs Company ('HRH') (along with various other brokers andinsurers) have been named as defendants in purported class actionsin various courts across the United States. All of these actionshave been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey ('MDL'). These actionsallege that the brokers breached their duties to their clients byentering into contingent compensation agreements with either nodisclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated inother improper activities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages,including punitive damages, and certain equitable relief. In May2011, the majority of defendants, including the Company and HRH,entered into a written settlement agreement with plaintiffs. OnJune 28, 2011, the Judge entered an Order granting preliminaryapproval to the settlement agreement. A total of 84 members ofthe class have opted out of the settlement. The Court approvedthe settlement on March 30, 2012. The amount of the settlementpaid by the Company and HRH is immaterial and was previouslyreserved. On April 12, 2012, one member of the settlement classfiled an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit from the District Court's Final Order ApprovingSettlement. On October 1, 2012, the class member withdrew itsappeal.Additional actions could be brought in the future by individualpolicyholders. The Company disputes the allegations in all ofthese lawsuits and has been and intends to continue to defenditself vigorously against these actions. The outcomes of theselawsuits, however, including any losses or other payments that mayoccur as a result, cannot be predicted at this time.Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company --http://www.willis.com/-- provides a range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to itsclients worldwide. The Company offers various insurance brokerageservices, including property damage, offshore construction,liability, and control of well and pollution insurance to theenergy industry; and marine insurance and reinsurance brokerageservices consisting of hull, cargo, and general marineliabilities. The Company was founded in 1828 and is headquarteredin London, the United Kingdom.WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stanford Collapse--------------------------------------------------------------Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company continues to defenditself and its subsidiaries against lawsuits arising from thecollapse of The Stanford Financial Group, according to theCompany's November 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.The Company has been named as a defendant in six similar lawsuitsrelating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as brokerof record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in theseactions generally allege that the defendants actively andmaterially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanfordwith certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would beused to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanfordclient investors. The complaints further allege that theseletters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurancepolicies that the defendants placed for Stanford, containeduntruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in thismanner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulentcertificates of deposit.The six actions are as follows: (1) Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). (2) Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009, against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. (3) Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. (4) Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009, on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the Court remanded Rupert to Texas State Court (Bexar County), but stayed these cases until further order of the court. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. (5) Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-01862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010, on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Casanova. (6) Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI02585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-relatedactions in the Northern District of Texas entered an orderproviding that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to theStanford-related actions based on the decision in a separateStanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the courtissued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action withprejudice under SLUSA.On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the ThirdAmended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds setforth in the Roland decision and (ii) dismissing without prejudicethose claims asserted the Third Amended Class Action Complaint onan individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entereda final judgment in the action.On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice ofappeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Rolanddecision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FifthCircuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oralargument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument,on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded theactions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filedpetitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitionsfor rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the UnitedStates Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal inTroice. On October 1, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an orderinviting the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing theviews of the United States about whether or not certiorari shouldbe granted.Additional actions could be brought in the future by otherinvestors in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford and itsaffiliates. The Company disputes these allegations and intends todefend itself vigorously against these actions. The outcomes ofthese actions, however, including any losses or other paymentsthat may occur as a result, cannot be predicted at this time.Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company --http://www.willis.com/-- provides a range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to itsclients worldwide. The Company offers various insurance brokerageservices, including property damage, offshore construction,liability, and control of well and pollution insurance to theenergy industry; and marine insurance and reinsurance brokerageservices consisting of hull, cargo, and general marineliabilities. The Company was founded in 1828 and is headquarteredin London, the United Kingdom. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NClass Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published byBankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi IreneA. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abanganand Peter A. Chapman, Editors.Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapmanat 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *