CAR_Public/130402.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 64

                             Headlines



ALPHA NATURAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over UBB Explosion
ALPHA NATURAL: Ex-Massey Stockholders Suit Dismissed in September
ALPHA NATURAL: June 2014 Trial Set in Massey Stockholders Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: Reviews Adverse Ruling in "ACTF" Suit vs. NCI
ALPHA NATURAL: W.Va. Court Extends Stay in Suit vs. Massey

ALPHA NATURAL: Stay of Suits vs. Massey Extended Until July 15
AMAZON.COM INC: Independent Booksellers File Class Action
CATAMARAN CORP: Merger-Related Suits Settlement Approved in Feb.
CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Claims
EDWARD JONES: Faces Suit Over Creating Conflict on Insurance

ENSTAR GROUP: Agrees to Settle Two Merger-Related Suits
ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over WARN Violation
FACEBOOK INC: Likely to Face More Suits Over Botched IPO
FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT: Faces Overtime Class Action
GOLD STANDARD: Recalls 1,134 Cases of Sweet P's Coffee Cakes

GOLDMAN SACHS: Mayer Brown Discusses Second Circuit Ruling
GRACO CHILDREN: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Child Car Seats
GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit
GREEN DOT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Delays

IMAX CORP: Blakes Discusses Ontario Court Class Action Ruling
IMPAX LABS: Sued for Withholding Results on New Lab Inspections
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
MEDICAL VISION: Implant Victims Devastated After Suit Dropped
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: Sued Over Misleading Admission Fee

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Reject Own Class Action Settlement
NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces Class Suit for Concealing Emission Problem
OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court Skeptical About Class Arbitration
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Junk Suit vs. Smithtown Remains Pending
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Strike Overdraft Fee Complaint Pending

PEOPLE'S UNITED: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit vs. Bank
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Still Awaits OK of $7.25BB Deal in Suit vs. VISA
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Kallick" Stockholder Suit in Delaware
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Oklahoma
SIM PROPERTIES: Seeks Dismissal of Tenants' Class Action

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal From "Harkness" Suit Plea Pending
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Individuals May Bring Discrimination Claims
STANDARD FIRE: Congressional Intent Considered in Court Ruling
STANDARD FIRE: High Court Ruling to Rein Class Action Abuses
STANDARD FIRE: K&L Gates Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

STAR SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
TRIPLE J: Recalls 15,270 Pounds of Bone-In Ribeye Products
UBER: Faces Allegations of Improperly Skimming Drivers' Tips
UNITED TECH: Faces Class Action Over Laid-Off Workers' Stock
VANGUARD NATURAL: Appeal From Dismissal of Delaware Suit Pending

VANGUARD NATURAL: Consolidated Suit vs. ENP Dismissed in Nov.
VISA INC: ARPC Completes Settlement Notification Program
WATKINS SECURITY: Judge Rejects Dismissal of Class Action
WEBMD HEALTH: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed in January
WELLS FARGO: Required to Offer Loan Modifications, Suit Claims

YOPLAIT: Settles Class Action Over Yo-Plus False Advertising

* China's NPC May Allow Consumers to File Class Actions
* Judge Balks at Prenda Lawyer's Class Action Tactics
* Participants in New Zealand Bank Fee Class Action Indemnified
* Settlement Trends Hold Clues to LIBOR Litigation Outcomes


                             *********


ALPHA NATURAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over UBB Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit brought by the family of a victim of the
UBB explosion, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 5, 2010, before the acquisition of Massey Energy Company
by the Company, an explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch
mine, resulting in the deaths of 29 miners (the "UBB explosion").
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"), the
Office of Miner's Health, Safety, and Training of the State of
West Virginia ("State"), and the Governor's Independent
Investigation Panel ("GIIP") initiated investigations into the
cause of the UBB explosion and related issues.  Additionally, the
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia (the
"Office") commenced a grand jury investigation.  The GIIP
published its final report on May 19, 2011; MSHA released its
final report on December 6, 2011; and the State released its final
report on February 23, 2012.

Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed
wrongful death lawsuits against Massey and certain of its
subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County
Circuit Court.  In addition, as of February 21, 2013, two
seriously injured employees had filed personal injury claims
against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County
Circuit Court seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged
psychiatric injuries, and thirty-nine employees had filed lawsuits
against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County
Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional
distress or personal injuries due to their proximity to the
explosion.  On April 19, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
transfer the Wyoming County lawsuits to Boone County.

On October 19, 2011, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that
the cases pending before it be mediated by a panel of three
mediators.  These mediations are, per order of the court, strictly
confidential.  The Company reached agreements to settle with all
twenty-nine families of the deceased miners as well as the two
employees who were seriously injured.  The settlements reached
with the families of the deceased miners have received court
approval.  The settlements relating to the two serious injuries
did not require court approval.

On May 4, 2012, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that the
remaining personal injury and emotional distress claims continue
to be mediated through July 6, 2012.  Until that date, a stay was
in place for all remaining cases until further order from the
court.  The stay was lifted on July 6, 2012, but mediation was
ordered to continue.  On July 20, 2012, the stay was reinstated
for discovery-related activities at the request of the United
States Attorney and by agreement of the parties.  This stay is
expected to remain in effect until the United States' criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion is completed.  Mediation
efforts in August 2012 successfully resolved all but two of the
personal injury and emotional distress claims.  A motion to
dismiss these two claims is pending before the Boone County
Circuit Court.  The Wyoming County lawsuits were settled and
dismissed prior to the court ruling on the Company's motion to
transfer.

On April 5, 2012, one of the families of the deceased miners filed
a class action lawsuit in Boone County Circuit Court, West
Virginia, purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their
claims prior to the mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into
a contract, naming as defendants Massey, the Company and certain
of its subsidiaries, the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of
Directors.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Ex-Massey Stockholders Suit Dismissed in September
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit brought by former
stockholders of Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary was
dismissed with prejudice in September 2012, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, a purported former stockholder of Massey Energy Company,
now the Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc.
("Alpha Appalachia"), Benjamin Mostaed ("Mostaed"), alleges in a
lawsuit filed on February 2, 2011, and amended thereafter,
purportedly on behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders,
that Massey, Alpha and certain former Massey directors violated
Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder by
filing a false and misleading preliminary proxy statement in
connection with the then-proposed Massey Acquisition; that Massey
and certain former Massey directors violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act;
that certain former Massey directors violated their fiduciary
duties by causing Massey to enter into the Merger Agreement with
Alpha pursuant to an unfair process that resulted in an unfair
offer with preclusive deal protection devices that allegedly
inhibited superior proposals; and that Massey and Alpha aided and
abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  Mostaed sought an injunction preventing the consummation of
the Massey Acquisition; rescission of the Merger Agreement; and an
award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 4, 2011, William D. Perkins ("Perkins"), another
purported former Massey stockholder, filed a lawsuit in the
Eastern District of Virginia similar to Mostaed's.  On
February 17, 2011, Mostaed requested that the court consolidate
the two pending actions, along with any subsequently filed actions
challenging the proposed transaction.  Defendants did not oppose
the motion.  On June 3, 2011, the court granted the motion.

On June 24, 2011, Mostaed informed the court that, aside from a
motion for an award of attorneys' fees, he did not intend to
prosecute the action further and would voluntarily dismiss his
claims.

On July 13, 2011, Mostaed and Perkins moved for an award of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards,
contending that voluntary remedial measures implemented by
defendants and sought by Mostaed (i.e., additional disclosure) had
mooted Mostaed's claims.  On July 26, 2011, defendants filed their
opposition and on August 4, 2011, Mostaed and Perkins filed their
reply brief.  The court subsequently denied plaintiffs' request
for oral argument.

On September 10, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards.
On September 24, 2012, the court dismissed the action with
prejudice.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: June 2014 Trial Set in Massey Stockholders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014, was set in the class
action lawsuit brought by former stockholders of Alpha Natural
Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's March 1,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former stockholders of Massey Energy Company,
now the Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc.
("Alpha Appalachia"), was filed in Boone County, West Virginia
Circuit Court.  The complaint asserts claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its
officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts
that the defendants made false statements about the Company's
Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey
Acquisition.  The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia.  On
September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to remand.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on
October 19, 2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that
motion on November 2, 2012.  On November 5, 2012, the federal
court remanded the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court
(without ruling on the pending motion to dismiss).  The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on
February 6, 2013.  The parties have agreed that the defendants
have 45 days from the date the plaintiff filed her amended
complaint to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
amended complaint.  The Boone County Circuit Court set a
preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Reviews Adverse Ruling in "ACTF" Suit vs. NCI
------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its March 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that it is reviewing a ruling
and evaluating the order's implications in the litigation
commenced by the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation against
a Company subsidiary.

In December 2004, prior to the Company's acquisition of Nicewonder
Contracting, Inc., in October 2005, the Affiliated Construction
Trades Foundation ("ACTF"), a division of the West Virginia State
Building and Construction Trades Council, brought an action
against the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division
of Highways ("WVDOH") and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc., which
became the Company's wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a result
of the Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States District Court
in the Southern District of West Virginia.  The plaintiff sought a
declaration that the contract between NCI and the State of West
Virginia related to NCI's road construction project was illegal as
a violation of applicable West Virginia and federal competitive
bidding and prevailing wage laws and sought to enjoin performance
of the contract, but did not seek monetary damages.

On September 30, 2009, the District Court issued an order that
dismissed or denied for lack of standing all of the plaintiff's
claims under federal law and remanded the remaining state claims
to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, for
resolution.  On May 7, 2010, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
entered summary judgment in favor of NCI.  On June 22, 2011, the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court
order granting summary judgment in favor of NCI, and remanded the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.  Following
remand, ACTF filed a motion for summary judgment, which the
Circuit Court denied on November 9, 2011.  ACTF challenged the
order denying its summary judgment motion to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals.

On June 21, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
issued an opinion finding that ACTF has standing to pursue its
claims and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, West Virginia, for further proceedings.  NCI's portion of
the highway project under the contract is complete.

The case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
West Virginia.  A settlement between NCI and ACTF was agreed upon
in early January 2013, prior to the scheduled trial date,
January 14, 2013.

The Company does not expect to incur any out-of-pocket
expenditures in connection with the settlement.  The trial
proceeded among the remaining parties.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported
class action lawsuit against NCI filed by a former NCI employee.
The former employee is represented by the same attorney who
represents the plaintiff in the ACTF litigation, and the
complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF
litigation.  NCI's answer was due on March 4, 2013.

On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled
that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as
the awarding and implementation, of the contract were in violation
of West Virginia law.

The Company says it is reviewing the Court's ruling and evaluating
its implications.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: W.Va. Court Extends Stay in Suit vs. Massey
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
further extended the existing discovery stay in the consolidated
securities lawsuit against a subsidiary of Alpha Natural
Resources, Inc. until the earlier of April 15, 2013, or the
conclusion of the U.S. Government's criminal investigation,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On April 29, 2010, and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey Energy Company, now the Company's
subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"),
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia in connection with alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on
behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey
and certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally
misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and
that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this action is a
proper class action; certification as class representatives; an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  On March 3, 2011, the United
States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same
facts that allegedly give rise to this action.  On July 9, 2012,
the Court entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until
the earlier of either the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation of the April 5, 2010 explosion that
occurred at the Upper Big Branch mine (the "UBB explosion") or
January 15, 2013.  On January 17, 2013, the Court further extended
the existing discovery stay until the earlier of April 15, 2013,
or the conclusion of the United States' criminal investigation of
the UBB explosion.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint.  On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer
to the consolidated amended class action complaint.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Stay of Suits vs. Massey Extended Until July 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
The stay of the proceedings of the lawsuits brought by former
stockholders of Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary is
extended until the earlier of July 15, 2013, or the conclusion of
the United States' criminal investigation, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On June 1, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition (the
"Massey Acquisition") of 100% of the outstanding common stock of
Massey Energy Company ("Massey"), a coal producer with operations
located primarily in Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

A number of purported former Massey stockholders have brought
lawsuits derivatively, purportedly on behalf of Massey, in West
Virginia and Delaware state courts, in connection with the
April 5, 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine and in
connection with claims allegedly arising out of the Massey
Acquisition.  Certain of these former stockholders have also
initiated contempt proceedings in West Virginia state court in
connection with alleged violations of the settlement of a previous
derivative lawsuit.  In addition, these and other purported former
Massey stockholders have asserted class action claims allegedly
arising out of the Massey Acquisition in Delaware and West
Virginia state courts and Virginia federal court.

                 Delaware Chancery Court Action

In a case filed on April 23, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying
allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his
retirement package.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on
behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that
certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Massey Acquisition.  The Delaware Plaintiffs
allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any
downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by
purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by
agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee.  In
addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to
the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants
faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims.  Finally, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully
disclose all material information necessary for Massey
stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants.  The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims.  Two additional putative class actions were brought
against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the
Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following
the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were
consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9,
2011, and February 24, 2011, respectively.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition.  The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  On June 10 and
13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants
moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the
remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court.  The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day.  On
January 31, 2012, the Company and Alpha Appalachia requested that
the Delaware Plaintiffs consent to a six-month extension of the
stay order (the "Stay Order"); the Delaware Plaintiffs refused to
do so.  On February 21, 2012, the Company and Alpha Appalachia
filed a motion to extend the Stay Order.  On June 15, 2012, the
Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion to extend the Stay
Order and granted the motion, extending the stay of proceedings
until the earlier of either the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013.

On January 16, 2013, the Court further extended the Stay Order
until the earlier of July 15, 2013 or the conclusion of the United
States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


AMAZON.COM INC: Independent Booksellers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
independent booksellers hit Amazon.com Inc. and six major
publishers with a beefed-up antitrust suit on March 21 accusing
them of using proprietary digital rights management software to
keep small brick-and-mortar shops from competing in the e-book
market.  The amended proposed class action complaint added new
detail to claims that Amazon has monopolized the e-reader market
and used that power to dominate the e-book market through
allegedly anti-competitive contracts signed with Random House
Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Hachette Book Group USA Inc., and
others.


CATAMARAN CORP: Merger-Related Suits Settlement Approved in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catamaran Corporation received in February 2013 the approval of
its settlement of merger-related class action lawsuits in
commenced in Delaware, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 17, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement (the "Merger Agreement") to combine the Company and
Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc. in a cash and stock merger
transaction.  On July 2, 2012, the Company completed the Merger
with Catalyst, a full-service pharmacy benefit management ("PBM")
serving more than 18 million lives in the United States and Puerto
Rico.  The transaction creates a combined PBM company with an
annual prescription volume of more than 250 million adjusted PBM
prescription claims.  Adjusted prescription claim volume equals
the Company's retail and specialty pharmacy prescriptions, plus
mail pharmacy prescriptions multiplied by three.  The mail
pharmacy prescriptions are multiplied by three to adjust for the
fact that they typically include approximately three times the
amount of product days supplied compared with retail and specialty
prescriptions.

A number of lawsuits were filed by alleged Catalyst stockholders
challenging the Company's proposed merger transaction with
Catalyst following the Company's announcement on April 18, 2012,
that the Company had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with respect to the Merger.  The complaints in the actions name as
defendants Catalyst, Catalyst's directors, the Company and certain
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company (collectively, "the
defendants").  Five complaints were filed in two different venues:
four complaints in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
and one in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of the State of
Maryland.  The plaintiffs in the purported class action complaints
generally alleged, among other things, that (i) the Catalyst
directors violated their fiduciary duties in connection with their
negotiation of and agreement to the merger agreement and the
Merger by, among other things, agreeing to allegedly inadequate
consideration and preclusive terms, (ii) the Company and certain
of its wholly-owned subsidiaries allegedly aided and abetted the
Catalyst directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and (iii)
the joint proxy statement/prospectus of the Company and Catalyst
relating to the Merger allegedly included certain materially
misleading disclosures and omissions.  The plaintiffs sought,
among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
Merger and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the
costs and disbursements of the action.  On May 25, 2012, the
Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision and order
consolidating the Delaware cases.

On June 25, 2012, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to a settlement with the remaining
parties to the action in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware.  Without agreeing that any of the plaintiffs' claims
have merit, the defendants agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, to make additional disclosures
described in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
June 25, 2012, which supplemented and formed part of the joint
proxy statement/prospectus of the Company and Catalyst dated
June 1, 2012.  In July 2012, the Maryland case was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in that action.  On October 24, 2012,
the parties to the remaining Delaware cases filed a stipulation of
settlement, which is subject to approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery following notice to the Catalyst stockholders.

At a hearing held on February 5, 2013, the Delaware Court of
Chancery, approved the terms of the settlements, dismissed with
prejudice all claims against the Company, Catalyst and other
defendants and awarded plaintiffs attorney fees in the amount of
$450,000, which were subsequently paid in full by the Company.
The settlement terms provide that the Delaware cases will be
dismissed with prejudice against all defendants.  The settlement
did not affect the amount of the merger consideration paid to the
stockholders of Catalyst in the Merger.  As of December 31, 2012,
the Company had recorded an immaterial liability in the
consolidated financial statements relating to the settlement of
this matter.

Catamaran Corporation -- http://www.catamaranrx.com/-- is a
provider of pharmacy benefit management services and healthcare
information technology solutions to the healthcare benefit
management industry.  The Company's product offerings and
solutions combine a wide range of applications and PBM services
designed to assist its customers in reducing the cost and managing
the complexity of their prescription drug programs.  The Company
was incorporated in Yukon Territory, Canada, and is headquartered
in Lisle, Illinois.


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Conagra Foods claims its
Parkay Spray has "zero calories" and "0g fat," though it has 832
calories and 93 grams of fat per bottle, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


EDWARD JONES: Faces Suit Over Creating Conflict on Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims Edward Jones' revenue-sharing with its insurance partners
creates a conflict of interest for the investment manager.

Lead plaintiff Daniel Ezersky sued Edward D. Jones & Co. dba
Edward Jones, in St. Louis County Court.

Ezersky claims Edward Jones representatives do not take all
factors into account, but seek to maximize profits when
determining the amount and cost of universal life insurance.

Edward Jones uses a number of computer programs to recommend the
proper amount of life insurance for a client, the complaint
states.

One such tool is the Life Insurance Needs Calculator, which does
not take into account Social Security survivor benefits, Ezersky
says in the complaint.

Another calculator, the FAST Survivor Tool, does take Social
Security survivor benefits into account.

"When Edward Jones brokers utilize the FAST Survivor Tool, the
recommended life insurance coverage is smaller - and is therefore
associated with the client being charged a smaller premium - than
when brokers rely on a methodology (such as the online Life
Insurance Needs Calculator) that does not take Social Security
survivor benefits into account," the complaint states.

Ezersky claims that though it does not cost Edward Jones to use
the FAST Survivor Tool, Jones reps seldom use it and often do not
tell clients it is available.

"There likewise is no extra cost to Edward Jones to use the FAST
Survival Tool, except indirectly by virtue of the lower premiums
that clients who accept the FAST Survival Tool recommendation pay,
in turn resulting in smaller commissions paid to Edward Jones and
possibly lower 'revenue sharing' payments," the complaint states.

Edward Jones received $58 million in revenue sharing payments from
its insurance partners in 2012, according to the complaint.

Ezersky claims he bought a universal life policy from Edward Jones
worth $435,000 using the Life Insurance Needs Calculator. He says
he was not informed of the FAST Survivor Tool option and that as a
result, Edward Jones recommended to him 50 percent more life
insurance than it would have been otherwise.

He seeks certification of two classes.

The first class consists of all Missourians who bought universal
life insurance from Edward Jones who were eligible for Social
Security survivor benefits, but were not recommended an amount of
insurance based on the FAST Survivor Tool.

The other class, which seeks an injunction, consists of all
Missourians who have beneficiaries eligible for Social Security
survivor benefits at the time of buying term, whole life or
universal life insurance from Edward Jones.

Ezersky class seeks disgorgement of profits and actual and
punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment
and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

He also wants Edward Jones enjoined from recommending an amount of
term, whole life or universal life insurance without informing
clients of the availability of the FAST Survivor Tool.

He is represented by Robert W. Schmieder II, with SL Chapman, in
St. Louis.


ENSTAR GROUP: Agrees to Settle Two Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has agreed in principle to settle two merger-
related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's March 1,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 7, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of
SeaBright Holdings, Inc., through the merger of the Company's
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, AML Acquisition, Corp., with and
into SeaBright with SeaBright surviving the Merger as the
Company's indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary.  SeaBright owns
SeaBright Insurance Company, an Illinois-domiciled insurer that is
commercially domiciled in California, which wrote workers
compensation business.  The aggregate cash purchase price of
$252.1 million was funded in part with $111.0 million borrowed
under a four-year term loan facility provided by National
Australia Bank and Barclays Bank PLC.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of SeaBright, two
purported class action lawsuits were filed against SeaBright, the
members of its board of directors, AML Acquisition, and, in one of
the cases, the Company.  The first lawsuit was filed on September
13, 2012, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington and the
second lawsuit was filed September 20, 2012, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that SeaBright's directors breached their fiduciary
duties when negotiating, approving and seeking stockholder
approval of the Merger, and that SeaBright and the Company or its
merger subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  In the lawsuits, plaintiffs sought to enjoin
defendants from taking any action to consummate the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, as well as monetary damages,
including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid the potential cost and distraction
of continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of delay to the
closing of the Merger, the Company, SeaBright and the SeaBright
director defendants agreed in principle to settle the two
lawsuits, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.  The
settlement required SeaBright to make supplemental information
available to its stockholders through a filing of a Current Report
on Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
settlement did not change the amount of the consideration that the
Company paid to SeaBright's stockholders in any way, nor did it
alter any deal terms.  The settlement is subject to execution and
delivery of definitive documentation, approval by the Washington
court of the settlement and approval by the Delaware court of the
dismissal of the Delaware lawsuit.  If the settlement becomes
effective, both lawsuits will be dismissed.

Enstar Group Limited -- http://www.enstargroup.com/-- is a
Bermuda-based company that acquires and manages insurance and
reinsurance companies in run-off and portfolios of insurance and
reinsurance business in run-off, and provides management,
consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance
industry.


ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over WARN Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Muller, writing for MLive, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Troy-based Entertainment
Publications, which announced earlier in March it has laid off its
370 employees and filed for bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on March 21, alleges that the coupon publisher
violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act, which requires employers to give 60 days wages and
benefits for those terminated without advance written notice.

Entertainment Publications filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
protection on March 12.  Such protection allows it to liquidate
its assets.

The company had been selling its popular Entertainment coupon
books in 149 markets throughout the world for about $35 to $50,
but has since slashed the prices of the booklets to $22.75.

It is not immediately clear how the coupon books would be affected
by the bankruptcy process.  A company spokesman could not
immediately be reached on March 25.

One of the sons of the Troy-based Entertainment Publications
company that filed for bankruptcy could be a potential buy,
Crain's Detroit Business reports.  Lowell Potiker has reportedly
bid $11.3 million, and apparently intends to keep the business
alive.

According to Delaware Bankruptcy court, the company's assets were
listed as $13.8 million, and its liabilities at $52.1 million.


FACEBOOK INC: Likely to Face More Suits Over Botched IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Tangel and Stuart Pfeifer, writing for Los Angeles Times,
report that the legal fallout from Facebook Inc.'s botched initial
public offering last year isn't over, although regulators approved
the $62-million plan by Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. to repay brokerages
that lost money in the debacle.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's approval on March 25
does not stop the government or other parties from taking further
legal action against Nasdaq for losses suffered in the Facebook
IPO fiasco in May.

Swiss banking giant UBS, for one, tallied its losses at $357
million and wants more money back than the settlement could offer.

The bank has condemned Nasdaq's plan "as inadequate and
insufficient" and said on March 25 that it would still seek to
recover through arbitration "the full extent of our losses."  UBS
criticized Nasdaq for its "gross mishandling" of the Facebook IPO
and "substantial failures to perform its duties."

Nasdaq's trading system was overwhelmed by high volume on the
first day that Facebook's stock traded, delaying trade
confirmations and contributing to a chaotic and costly day for
investors in the social media company.

Wall Street firms lost as much as an estimated $500 million
because of Nasdaq glitches during that first day of trading.

Brokerages complained that they didn't get confirmation that
trades were going through, leaving investors in the dark about
whether they owned the stock or at what price.  The problem was
magnified as shares of the stock plunged after opening higher than
expected.

After the debacle, Nasdaq Chief Executive Robert Greifeld embarked
on an apology tour of the financial media, saying the IPO was a
low point and an embarrassment for the exchange.

Nasdaq initially offered a compensation plan of up to $42 million,
but increased the proposal after brokerages said it was too low.

Nasdaq issued a statement that it was "pleased" regulators had
approved the plan, which will be administered by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority.  Commonly known as Finra, the self-
regulatory body will evaluate all compensation requests made to
Nasdaq.

But the exchange operator isn't pleased with the UBS decision to
seek arbitration.

"Nasdaq regrets that UBS has chosen to proceed through an
arbitration, rather than through the accommodation process," the
firm said.  Nasdaq said it has "substantial defenses" against the
bank's claims.

After Facebook's IPO last year, the SEC launched a broad inquiry,
but the agency has yet to announce the outcome of its probes.

Separately, public pension funds, including the Fresno County
Employees' Retirement Assn., have joined a class-action lawsuit
against Facebook and its Wall Street underwriters.

The suit, which is pending in federal court in Manhattan, alleges
that lead underwriters gave only some select investors a heads-up
that Facebook's eleventh-hour revenue forecast had soured, putting
others at a disadvantage.


FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT: Faces Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that First Student Management
stiffed bus drivers for overtime, 145 named plaintiffs say in a
federal class action.


GOLD STANDARD: Recalls 1,134 Cases of Sweet P's Coffee Cakes
------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Standard Baking of Chicago, Illinois, is recalling 1,134
cases of Sweet P's Bake Shop branded Caramel Apple Danish Coffee
Cake because it contains undeclared walnuts.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts and other tree nuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

Sweet P's Bake Shop branded Caramel Apple Danish Coffee Cake was
manufactured on 02-03-2013 and 03-06-2013 and distributed to
nationwide food retailers.  Gold Standard Baking is notifying its
distributors and is arranging for return of all recalled product.

   Brand        Product Description         UPC         Lots*
   -----        -------------------     ------------    -----
   Sweet P's    Caramel Apple Danish    011225113833    020313
   Bake Shop    Coffee Cake                             030613

   * Lot code is first six digits printed on end of clamshell
     packaging

Pictures of the recalled products and labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm345199.htm

Gold Standard Baking is voluntarily recalling Sweet P's Bake Shop
branded Caramel Apple Danish Coffee Cake after discovering that it
contained walnuts and was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of walnuts.

No injuries have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased Sweet P's Bake Shop brand Caramel
Apple Danish Coffee Cake are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the Company at 1-800-648-7904, [8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. hours of
operation, Central Standard Time].


GOLDMAN SACHS: Mayer Brown Discusses Second Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- at
Mayer Brown reports that since Concepcion, the plaintiffs' bar has
been exhorting courts to recognize exceptions to its holding that
courts may not refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement on the
ground that it precludes class actions.  In the employment
context, the plaintiffs' bar thought that it had a winner with
Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, in which a magistrate judge concluded
(and a district court agreed) that Title VII bars enforcement of
such agreements when the named plaintiff seeks to rely on
"pattern-or-practice" evidence of discrimination.  However, the
Second Circuit reversed Chen-Oster and closed the loophole in
Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

The Second Circuit explained that the lower court had erroneously
assumed that Title VII authorizes private plaintiffs to bring
"pattern-or-practice" claims.  In fact, the Second Circuit held, a
"right to bring a substantive 'pattern-or-practice' claim" "does
not exist."  That is because the term "'pattern-or-practice'
simply refers to a method of proof and does not constitute a
'freestanding cause of action.'"  In other words, "[a] pattern or
practice case .  .  . is really merely another method by which
disparate treatment" in violation of Title VII "can be shown."

The Second Circuit recognized that a number of decisions appear to
preclude private plaintiffs (though not the government) from
seeking to hold companies liable for a "regular procedure or
policy" of discrimination (in other words, a "pattern or practice"
of discrimination) except in the context of a class action.  But
the Second Circuit rejected the notion that the class device could
be used to create a new substantive right.  Significantly, the
court pointed to the Rules Enabling Act, which provides that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- including Rule 23 -- cannot be
used to abridge, modify, or enlarge substantive rights. Stated
another way, "[t]he availability of the class action Rule 23
mechanism presupposes the existence of a claim; Rule 23 cannot
create a non-waivable, substantive right to bring such a claim."

In short, because there is no right to bring a pattern-or-practice
claim, the Second Circuit held that the arbitration agreement's
waiver of class procedures did not eliminate any of the
plaintiff's substantive rights.  Moreover, the court recognized
that nothing in the arbitration agreement precluded a plaintiff in
an individual arbitration from "offer[ing] to the arbitrators
evidence of discriminatory patterns, practices, or policies . . .
that she contends affects her."

The decision in Parisi should be very beneficial to employers who
may be subject to suit within the Second Circuit; it should close
the door on efforts by plaintiffs' lawyers to avoid their clients'
arbitration agreements by arguing that pattern-or-practice
evidence may be presented only in class actions in court.  The
decision also is helpful to class-action defendants more broadly.
By recognizing that the Rules Enabling Act -- which is rooted in
considerations of due process -- forbids interpreting Rule 23 to
expand or alter individual substantive rights, the decision
provides further ammunition to companies resisting arguments by
plaintiffs that the standards of proof or elements of a cause of
action should be relaxed or ignored in the context of a class
action.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal
practices that are separate entities.  The Mayer Brown Practices
are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe -- Brussels LLP, both
limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer
Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and
Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in
France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its
associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a
Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated.


GRACO CHILDREN: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Child Car Seats
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Graco Children's Products and
Newell Rubbermaid sell child car seats that "simply will not
unlatch" or do so with difficulty, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on March 20 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Company on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from August 7, 2012 through March 14, 2013.  The complaint
brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Great Lakes is the largest provider of dredging services in the
U.S. and a major provider of commercial and industrial demolition
and remediation services.  After the close of markets on March 14,
2013, GLDD announced that it would need to restate its second and
third quarter 2012 results by millions of dollars and that the
Company's President/Chief Operating Officer (who was also the
former Chief Financial Officer through August 20, 2012) was
abruptly departing.  Regarding the restatement, the Company
disclosed that it had identified instances in its demolition
segment where revenue was recognized in a manner inconsistent with
the Company's accounting policy, in that certain pending change
orders where client acceptance was not finalized were included as
revenue.  Great Lakes also disclosed that it will be reporting a
material weakness in its internal controls over financial
reporting.

In reaction to the news, Great Lakes' share price fell 18%, from
$8.97 per share on March 14, 2013 to $7.355 per share on March 15,
2013, on unusually heavy trading volume.  You may obtain a copy of
the Complaint and join the class action at
http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Great Lakes stock between August 7, 2012 and
March 14, 2013, you may contact Joe White --
jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- or Marc Grobler --
mgrobler@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Great Lakes common stock during the Class Period
of August 7, 2012 through March 14, 2013, and wish to apply to be
the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than May 20, 2013.  You may contact
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action.  Please
note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not
take any action at this time to be a class member.

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


GREEN DOT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending
in California, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 27, 2012, an alleged class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
against the Company and two of its officers.  A similar lawsuit
was filed on August 10, 2012.  Those cases have now been
consolidated under the caption In re Green Dot Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-6492-GW (CWx), and a
consolidated complaint has been filed.  The lawsuit asserts
purported claims under: (i) Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements in January 2012
and April 2012 regarding the Company's business and financial
results, on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 26, 2012, and July 26, 2012 (a period
in which plaintiffs claim the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated); and (ii) Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misstatements in the Company's
initial public offering Registration Statement and Prospectus, on
behalf of persons who acquired shares in or traceable to the
initial public offering in July 2010.  The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, fees and costs.  The defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Headquartered in Pasadena, California, Green Dot Corporation --
http://www.greendot.com/-- is a financial services company
providing simple, low-cost and convenient money management
solutions to a broad base of U.S. consumers.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in October 1999 as Next Estate
Communications, Inc. and changed its name to Green Dot in October
2005.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Delays
----------------------------------------------------
TaxLawHome.com reports that a number of taxpayers who used H&R
Block to file their federal income tax have banded together to
file several class-action suits against the company.

H&R Block announced the delay of refunds for as many tax returns
that included a form related to a student tax credit deduction.
The form in question, Form 8863, allows a taxpayer to reclaim 100%
of the first $2,000 in eligible student expenses and 25% of each
dollar of eligible student expenses thereafter.

Previously the eligibility line of Form 8863 could be left blank
and still indicate to the IRS that the taxpayer qualified for the
student tax credit.  Starting with the 2012 tax year, the IRS
began to require that an "n" be entered in the eligibility line to
indicate qualification.  However, Form 8863 in H&R Block's tax
software still permits the line to be left blank, which is
resulting in the delay of refunds.

Only those who filed Form 8863 between February 14 and February 22
with a blank eligibility line will experience the delay.  However,
this includes approximately 600,000 taxpayers.

Attorneys representing taxpayers in California and Minnesota have
filed two separate class-action suits.

"Because of the error in the submission, which appears to be
uniform in all of those, it's their entire return that has been
delayed.  Not just the educational tax credits.  This has caused a
lot of issues," noted David Cialkowski, an attorney with Zimmerman
Reed who filed the class-action suit in California on behalf of
Juan Ortega.  Mr. Cialkowski indicated that more than 500
individuals have contacted Zimmerman Reed related to the H&R Block
tax software error.

The class action suit alleges that H&R Block was negligent in
their failure to properly update their tax software and they
violated consumer protection laws.  The suit notes that those
impacted by the delay are experiencing additional stress as they
seek to make ends meet financially until they receive their
refunds.

"They were depending on this money and relying on getting it back
as soon as possible," Mr. Cialkowski said.  "It's ironic, and I
don't mean to be amusing here.  But the opposite happened and the
people were deprived of the use of that money they were depending
on."

The damages that will be sought in the class-action suits have not
been announced as the attorneys are still performing discovery.
Playing into the amount of damages is the impact the late tax
returns will have on students seeking financial aid from the
federal government, as an accepted tax return is required as a
part of the filing process.  Students affected by the delay in
receiving their refund will now miss the filing date for financial
aid.

"Based on the recent trends, we believe that in the next 48 hours
more than half of the impacted clients will have their refund, or
a change in status declaring a refund date," noted a spokesperson
from H&R Block via e-mail.  "It's important to note that the tax
returns were prepared accurately.  The error occurred in e-file
processing."

The spokesperson went on to also note that the error on Form 8863
was corrected after February 22.

Bill Cobb, the CEO of H&R Block, posted an apology on H&R Block's
web site.

"I want to make it clear that this was absolutely not the fault of
your tax professional; your return was prepared accurately.  This
was an issue with the form transmission.  This was our mistake --
and I sincerely apologize.  I want you to know that we hear the
frustration of those impacted by this issue loud and clear, and
we're working every avenue we can to get your refund to you as
fast as possible."

Mr. Cobb also noted that they are working with the Department of
Education to assist those who will miss the normal cutoff for
seeking student financial aid.

Courthouse News Service reports that federal class actions also
have been filed in Los Angeles and Flint, Mich., claiming H&R
Block's in-person and online tax preparation screw up education
tax credits (IRS Form 8863).


IMAX CORP: Blakes Discusses Ontario Court Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Laing, Esq. -- andrea.laing@blakes.com -- Ryan Morris, Esq.
-- ryan.morris@blakes.com -- and Max Shapiro, Esq. --
max.shapiro@blakes.com -- at Blakes Lawyers reports that in a
decision which may be significant for public issuers defending
securities class actions in multiple jurisdictions, an Ontario
court has held that certain members of the class in an Ontario
class action will be removed from the class as a result of the
settlement of a parallel U.S. class proceeding.  In Silver v. IMAX
(IMAX), released on March 19, 2013, Justice van Rensburg of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendants' motion
to revise the class definition in the Ontario case to exclude
those investors who purchased securities of IMAX Corporation
(IMAX) over the NASDAQ exchange. The decision has the effect of
removing approximately 85% of the class members from the Ontario
action and limiting the class to the remaining 15% of investors
who purchased their securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange
(TSX).  As the first decision to consider the effect of the
settlement of a parallel U.S. secondary market class action on a
class proceeding commenced under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act (OSA), IMAX provides an example of how Canadian
courts may approach the settlement of securities class actions in
cross-border scenarios.

BACKGROUND TO THE DECISION

In 2006, parallel U.S. and Canadian proceedings were commenced
against IMAX and other defendants in which it was alleged that the
defendants made misrepresentations in IMAX's financial reports.
IMAX is a Canadian-based public company, the shares of which are
dual-listed on the TSX and NASDAQ exchanges.  In August 2006, IMAX
announced that it was responding to a formal inquiry from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission about revenue recognition in
its 2005 financial results.  IMAX's shares dropped by 40% the next
day. Shareholder losses of over C$200-million were claimed.

The misrepresentation claims in the Ontario action were brought
under Part XXIII.1 of the OSA, which provides a statutory right of
action against reporting issuers, their officers and directors,
and other related parties for misrepresentations in secondary
market disclosures, and at common law.  In 2009, leave was granted
to proceed with the statutory claims, as is required by the OSA,
and the action was also certified as a class proceeding.  At that
time, the court certified a global class of IMAX investors that
included purchasers of securities on both the TSX and NASDAQ
exchanges. Van Rensburg J., in certifying the "global" class,
reasoned that the conduct of the defendants had a real and
substantial connection to Ontario (in particular, because IMAX is
a reporting issuer in Ontario and its shares are listed on the
TSX).

In June 2012, a fairness hearing was conducted in the U.S.
proceeding before Justice Buchwald in the Southern District of New
York to consider a settlement agreement affecting only those
purchasers who acquired their securities over the NASDAQ.  Justice
Buchwald J. approved the settlement conditionally, pending an
order from the Ontario court amending the class in the Ontario
proceeding to exclude those persons entitled to participate in the
U.S. settlement (i.e., those class members who purchased IMAX
securities on the NASDAQ exchange).

                         The Decision

Van Rensburg J. provided the requisite order, determining that
removing the NASDAQ purchasers from the Ontario class accorded
with the preferable procedure requirement in section 5(1)(d) of
the Ontario Class Proceedings Act.  In so doing, she rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that granting the order requested by the
defendants would "rip the guts out" of the pending Ontario class
action. She concluded that keeping the NASDAQ purchasers in the
Ontario class would not promote access to justice or be
"preferable" for the NASDAQ purchasers who would lose the benefit
of the U.S. settlement if the order was not granted.  She also
rejected the argument that reducing the class would be unfair to
TSX purchasers who will be left to share the costs of litigating
in Ontario amongst a smaller number of plaintiffs.  She observed
that the TSX purchasers had been provided with the opportunity to
accept a settlement proportionate with what was offered to the
NASDAQ purchasers in the U.S. and stated that it is "not the
function of the court to favour or protect the interests of class
counsel within this jurisdiction, knowing that they have invested
time and resources into the litigation, and that their
compensation will depend on the size of the judgment they are able
to receive."

As part of the analysis, van Rensburg J. applied the test for
recognition of a foreign judgment, as set out by the Ontario Court
of Appeal in Currie v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada.  She
concluded that the test had been satisfied because the NASDAQ
purchasers' claims had a real and substantial connection to the
U.S., that these plaintiffs had been accorded procedural fairness,
and were adequately represented in the U.S.  She pointed out that
notice to these class members included information about the
parallel Canadian proceedings and the implications of
participation in the U.S. settlement on any claims they may have
in Canada.  In particular, she observed that notice of the U.S.
settlement had been provided in Canadian newspapers and there was
a degree of participation of Ontario class counsel in U.S.
settlement discussions.

                          Implications

Although IMAX could still be subject to an appeal, it has a number
of implications for cross-border securities class actions:

Defendants May Have Multiple Opportunities to Narrow the Class
While parallel securities class actions with overlapping classes
are increasingly common, there are multiple junctures at which a
defendant may seek to exclude investors who purchased securities
over foreign exchanges from a class in Ontario (or potentially
other Canadian provinces).  The decision is encouraging from a
defendant's perspective because it suggests that even when a
global class of investors is certified in Canada, it may be
possible to narrow the class at a subsequent point in time.  In
other words, defendants may have multiple "kicks at the can".
It May Be Unnecessary to Settle Cross-Border Claims on a Global
Basis

Defendants to cross-border claims will have little motivation to
settle either claim in isolation from the other if they cannot
assure that class members who are entitled to participate in a
settlement on one side of the border will be excluded from the
class on the other side.  They may stand to gain little or nothing
in exchange for the settlement funds because they cannot be
certain that plaintiffs who are members of both classes will not
simply continue to assert their claims on the other side of the
border.  The IMAX decision may help to allay concerns of
defendants that cross-border securities class actions cannot be
settled other than on a global basis.  It suggests that cross-
border defendants may have the flexibility to negotiate different
settlements in the U.S. and Canada and that they may choose to
settle U.S. and Canadian cases at different points in time,
depending on factors that may be specific to the litigation in
each jurisdiction.
Deference

Finally, the decision suggests that courts in Ontario and other
Canadian provinces will likely show considerable deference to
decisions of U.S. courts that affect the rights of class members
in Canadian class proceedings, provided that basic procedural
protections have been afforded to these class members.
Significant amongst these protections is a notice program that
adequately describes the rights that members of overlapping
classes may have in Canadian proceedings and explains how these
rights will be affected by their participation in the U.S.
settlement.


IMPAX LABS: Sued for Withholding Results on New Lab Inspections
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Impax Laboratories withheld
disappointing results about a new drug and a lab inspection, and
the share price sank by 45 percent when the truth was known,
shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007, through November 6, 2008.
The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  On July 21,
2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner.  The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from June 13, 2007, through November 11, 2008.  The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter.  On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner.  The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007, through November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations.  On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.  On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing Defendants'
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated
August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiff's
complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4
to November 6, 2008.  On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a
purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second
Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a
time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by
the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters
that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.  The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012.  On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended.

The Company says this consolidated action is in a preliminary
stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to
date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the
outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss,
if any.  The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. -- http://www.lasvegassands.com/-- was
incorporated as a Nevada corporation in August 2004 and is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Las Vegas Sands is a Fortune
500 company and a global developer of destination properties
(integrated resorts) that feature premium accommodations, world-
class gaming, entertainment and retail, convention and exhibition
facilities, celebrity chef restaurants and other amenities.  The
Company currently owns and operates integrated resorts in Asia and
the United States.


MEDICAL VISION: Implant Victims Devastated After Suit Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Owen, writing for The Australian, reports that people with
medical devices implanted in their bodies may not be covered if
the product is faulty because there is no legal requirement for
distributors or manufacturers to hold product liability insurance.

A planned class action against the distributor of imported faulty
breast implants has been dropped.  More than 1,000 Australian
women who received the implants made by French company Poly
Implant Prothese (PIP) joined the lawsuit after concerns about
their high rate of rupture.

Adelaide law firm Tindall Gask Bentley says distributor Medical
Vision Australia had limited product liability insurance, making
class action unviable.  Lawyers say they will now investigate the
possibility of other defendants.  The firm says testing has
confirmed the implants are at least two to six times more likely
to rupture than other brands.

Partner Tim White -- twhite@tgb.com.au -- says the firm had been
investigating the claim since December 2011.

"There is no requirement for a company to hand over details in
relation to its insurance cover or the policies themselves," he
said.

"We were fortunate that the insurer by consent handed this
information over to us very recently otherwise we might have been
months into the litigation and still not aware of this problem."

A woman affected says she is disappointed and angry that the
company cannot be pursued.

Ms. Rayner, 27, had silicon leak into her lymphatic system when
one of her implants ruptured.

"I've experienced a lot of costs.  $25,000 in surgery alone.  That
doesn't count all the times that I've had to have off of work but
also I want them to be accountable for what they've done," she
said.

"It's not just about costs.  It's being accountable to what
they've done to all these women."

Another patient, Tarnya Walker, paid almost $5,000 to have her PIP
implants removed.

"I had to sacrifice absolutely everything," she said.

"And being a single mother with two kids that wasn't easy, but I
knew the only important thing was getting them out."

Ms. Walker got the implants removed last year.  Two years
previously, she had to have her gall bladder removed.

She says complications from both surgeries have left her unable to
work and she now lives with her two children in a boarding house.

"The money that I was earning was enough to survive.  But being
sick and then sort of having to pay for the operation, I have
nothing left now because it's all gone," she said.

"That literally has put me in a situation where I'm homeless.
With Centrelink I'm technically homeless."

Independent senator Nick Xenophon says it beggars belief that the
company was not required to have a higher level of insurance.

"This French company has gone bankrupt.  Their CEO was under house
arrest.  You have the Australian company in liquidation and now we
find out that there is no adequate insurance cover for these
women," he said.

"You can't practice medicine in Australia without insurance, so
why is it that medical devices implanted in our bodies don't
require that protection for consumers? This needs to be the
subject of legislative reform.

"It is just incomprehensible that medical devices implanted in the
bodies of Australians, the manufacturers, the distributors aren't
required to have any form of adequate insurance to cover consumers
whose lives can be ruined as a result of those devices going
wrong.

"They have industrial grade silicone in them which is another
issue as to how on Earth did they get approved in the first place.

"The Food and Drug Administration in the US took a tougher
approach on these implants, much tougher than our regulator.

"I've spoken to a number of women affected by the PIP implants.
They are devastated that they are now going to be out of pocket in
the tens of thousands of dollars in some cases for the surgery to
fix up the mess created by these defective implants."

The French silicone gel implants were recalled in Australia by the
Therapeutic Goods Administration in 2010 after medical authorities
in France raised concerns.

Last year, a report by the UK's National Health Service found the
implants did not pose a significant health risk but did rupture
more frequently than other products.

According to adelaidenow's Sheradyn Holderhead, Mr. White said "We
are devastated for the thousands of women who have been impacted
by the PIP implants scandal in Australia."

"We have had a team working full-time on this matter since
December 2011 and invested a huge amount of resources into
exploring all available compensation avenues for the many women
who have contacted us, but without adequate insurance a class
action against the distributor is impossible.

"We maintain that the implants are clearly faulty, testing has
confirmed that at the very least they are two to six times more
likely to rupture than other brands, and affected women deserve to
be compensated."

In a statement, the law firm said Medical Vision Australia Pty
Ltd, which appointed Heard Phillips as liquidator last October,
moved to limit its liability in late 2011 by creating two new
companies, Medical Vision Australia Plastic and Cosmetic Pty Ltd
and Medical Vision Cardiology and Thoracic Pty Ltd.  The companies
operate out of South Australia.

Insurance documents confirmed that Medical Vision Australia Pty
Ltd. did not have product liability insurance for five of the
eight years it was Australia's sole distributor of PIP implants.

"It is disgraceful that a company was allowed to supply high risk
medical devices to thousands of women without insurance," Mr.
White said.

"As a further slap in the face, the distributor is still operating
in the medical device industry today under a different name with
no repercussions."

Hundreds of thousands of women worldwide were supplied PIP
implants containing non-approved silicone.

French businessman Jean-Claude Mas, the founder of PIP, is facing
criminal charges with a trial starting in April.

Medical Vision Australia declined to comment when contacted by
adelaidenow.

At a press conference on March 25, Mr. Xenophon launched a
scathing attack on Australia's regulatory agency for medical drugs
and devices, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Senator Nick Xenophon has called the Therepeutic Goods Association
a "pathetic excuse for a watchdog" over their stance on PIP
implants.

"They say that they're not toxic . . . I think it's a matter of
common sense, if you have industrial grade silicon that ruptures
in your body and leaks into your lymphatic system you would expect
that there could well be health effects arising from that," he
said.

Mr. Xenophon said there needs to be a system which ensures that
any device implanted in the body of an Australian is a device that
is appropriately insured.

"It's about time the Australian Government picked up the pieces,"
he said.


METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: Sued Over Misleading Admission Fee
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that before visitors to the
Metropolitan Museum of Art can stroll past the Picassos, Renoirs,
Rembrandts and other priceless works, they must first deal with
the ticket line, the posted $25 adult admission and the meaning of
the word in smaller type just beneath it: "recommended."

Many people, especially foreign tourists, either don't see it,
don't understand it or don't question it.  If they ask, they are
told the fee is merely a suggested donation: You can pay what you
wish but you must pay something.

Some who choose to pay less than the full price pull out a $10 or
$5 bill.  Some fork over a buck or loose change.  Those who balk
at paying anything at all are told they won't be allowed in unless
they pay something, even a penny.

"I just asked for one adult general admissions and he just said,
'$25,'" says Richard Johns, a high school math teacher from Little
Rock, Ark., who paid the full price at the museum this past week.
"It should be made clear that it is a donation you are required to
make.  Especially for foreign tourists who don't understand.  Most
people don't know it."

Confusion over what's required to enter one of the world's great
museums, which draws more than 6 million visitors a year, is at
the heart of a class-action lawsuit filed in March accusing the
Met of scheming to defraud the public into believing the fees are
required.  The lawsuit contends that the museum uses misleading
marketing and training of cashiers to violate an 1893 New York
state law that mandates the public should be admitted for free at
least five days and two evenings per week.  In exchange, the
museum gets annual grants from the city and free rent for its
building and land along pricey Fifth Avenue in Central Park.

Met spokesman Harold Holzer denied any deception and said a policy
of requiring visitors to pay at least something has been in place
for more than four decades.  "We are confident that the courts
will see through this insupportable nuisance lawsuit."

The suit seeks compensation for museum members and visitors who
paid by credit card over the past few years.

"The museum was designed to be open to everyone, without regard to
their financial circumstances," said Arnold Weiss, one of two
attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of three museum-goers, a
New Yorker and two tourists from the Czech Republic.  "But
instead, the museum has been converted into an elite tourist
attraction."

Among the allegations are that third-party Web sites do not
mention the recommended fee, and that the museum sells memberships
that carry the benefit of free admission, even though the public
is already entitled to free admission.

Lined up to testify is a former museum supervisor who oversaw and
trained the Met's admissions cashiers from 2007 to 2011.  Michael
Hiller, the other attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the
supervisor trained cashiers to encourage visitors to pay the full
freight by saying things like "you must realize it is very
expensive to run the museum."  He will also say that in 2010-2011
the term on the sign was changed from "suggested" to "recommended"
because administrators believed it was a stronger word that would
encourage people to pay more.

The Met's Mr. Holzer denied the former employee's allegations.  He
also said the basis for the lawsuit -- that admission is intended
to be free -- is wrong because the state law the plaintiffs cited
has been superseded many times and the city approved pay-what-you-
wish admissions in 1970.

"The idea that the museum is free to everyone who doesn't wish to
pay has not been in force for nearly 40 years," Mr. Holzer said,
adding, "Yes, you do have to pay something."

As to the wording change on the sign, he said the museum "actually
thought at the time, and still thinks, that 'recommended' is
softer than 'suggested,' so the former employee is quite wrong
here."

New York City's Department of Cultural Affairs agreed to the
museum's request in 1970 for a general admission as long as the
amount was left up to individuals and that the signage reflected
that.  Similar arrangements are in place for other cultural
institutions that operate on city-owned land and property and
receive support from the city, such as the American Museum of
Natural History and the Brooklyn Museum.  It's also a model that's
been replicated in other cities.

The Metropolitan Museum is one of the world's richest cultural
institutions, with a $2.58 billion investment portfolio, and isn't
reliant on admissions fees to pay the majority of its bills.  Only
about 11 percent of the museum's operating expenses were covered
by admissions charges in the 2012 fiscal year.  As a nonprofit
organization, the museum pays no income taxes.

Mr. Holzer also noted that in the past fiscal year, 41 percent of
visitors to the Met paid the full recommended admission price --
$25 for adults, $17 for seniors and $12 for students.

A random sampling of visitors leaving the museum found that there
was a general awareness that "recommended" implied you could pay
less than the posted price.

But Dan Larson and his son Jake, visiting the museum last week
from Duluth, Minn., were unaware there was any room to negotiate
the admission price.  They paid the full $25 each for adult
tickets.

"My understanding was you pay the recommended price," said
Mr. Larson, 50.  "That's clearly not displayed."

Alexander Kulessa, a 23-year-old university student from Germany,
said friends who had previously visited New York tipped him off
about the admission fee.

"They said, 'Don't pay $25,'" said Mr. Kulessa.  "They said it
will be written everywhere to pay $25 but you don't have to pay
that.  You don't even have to pay the student price."

For Colette Leger, a tourist from Toronto who visited the museum
with her teenage daughter, paying the full $25 was worth every
penny.

"It's a beautiful museum and I was happy to pay," she said.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Reject Own Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in 2009, six
retired pro football stars filed a class action against the
National Football League in federal court in Minneapolis, claiming
that the NFL misappropriated their names and images without their
consent.  The class action, led by (among others) former Houston
Oiler Hall of Famer Elvin Bethea and former Los Angeles Ram All
Pro and television star Fred Dryer, asserted that the NFL didn't
compensate its retired players when it used clips from old games
to promote the league.  In September 2011, the Dryer case was
consolidated with two other similar class actions.  Three firms,
Zimmerman Reed, Hausfeld and Bob Stein, were named interim lead
counsel.

The NFL and the class recently filed a $50 million settlement with
U.S. Senior District Judge Paul Magnuson.  Two days later, Messrs.
Dryer, Bethea and the other four retired players who filed the
original suit -- and who are still the first six name plaintiffs
in the case -- objected to the settlement, arguing that it
delivers no cash directly to class members and, as such, should be
treated with the judicial skepticism that has lately greeted
settlements involving no money for class members and millions for
their lawyers.  That argument may be familiar, but the
circumstances of this objection are anything but.  "How often do
you see six original name plaintiffs repudiate the settlement of
their case? Aside from the widespread retailer discontent with the
recent Visa and MasterCard interchange fee settlement, I can't
think of an example.  Nor can I remember a case in which
plaintiffs' lawyers fought so nastily over settlement terms that
the court had to appoint a lawyer outside of the lead counsel
triumvirate to negotiate on behalf of the class.  What a mess for
Judge Magnuson to clean up," Thomson Reuters' Ms. Frankel said.

Court-ordered settlement talks began before U.S. Magistrate Arthur
Boylan last summer, after the class filed an amended complaint
(adding more retired players as plaintiffs) and discovery got
under way.  But it turns out that a deep schism had developed
between some of the players and their counsel Michael Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

(Mr. Hausfeld was actually the second lawyer for Messrs. Dryer,
Bethea and their fellow original name plaintiffs, who began the
case with counsel from Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed.)  Last
November, former journeyman quarterback Dan Pastorini filed a
notice in the Minnesota class action, informing the court that he
had sued Mr. Hausfeld and his eponymous firm for malpractice in
state court in Harris County, Texas.  Mr. Pastorini said that he
and many of Mr. Hausfeld's other clients "do not support the
present actions of defendants to attempt to settle their own class
action case in a way that lines the pockets of defendants with
legal fees, creates nonsensical entities orchestrated by
defendants to obtain still more additional side benefits to them,
but does nothing to effectively further the interest of plaintiff
and the class members that he represents."

It certainly didn't advance comity in the case that Mr. Pastorini
was (and is) represented in the malpractice suit by Jon King, who
was fired from the Hausfeld firm last October.  Mr. King, as you
may recall, subsequently filed his own all-encompassing complaint
against Mr. Hausfeld in January, accusing Mr. Hausfeld of cutting
ethical corners to keep the firm afloat.  The firm, meanwhile, has
said Mr. King's claims are baseless allegations from an ousted
employee.

In December, Judge Magnuson recognized that disagreements among
plaintiffs' lawyers had stalled negotiations to settle the retired
players' class action.  On the same day that Mr. Hausfeld formally
withdrew as counsel to the original six plaintiffs, Judge Magnuson
appointed Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek as settlement
counsel for the class.  It was Mr. Gustafson who signed the brief
requesting approval of a settlement that would establish a $42
million "common good" fund and an independent licensing agency to
oversee future publicity rights of retired players.  According to
the settlement brief, the common fund is not intended to pay any
individual class member for the misappropriation of his image, but
would disburse money to third-party charities providing health,
insurance and career transition services to retired NFL players.
Plaintiffs' lawyers would receive a total of $7.7 million under
the proposed agreement.

The original name plaintiffs believe it's a raw deal for the
class.  "The amounts paid under the settlement will go only to
undefined charitable organizations, and not to class members in
the form of direct benefits," they wrote, citing courts that have
recently rejected these so-called cy pres settlements.  "The NFL
has built its films library on the backs of retired players, but
the proposed settlement does not guarantee the players any benefit
from the complete release of their claims." This class action
isn't a consumer case in which the class is hard to define, the
objectors' brief said.  So there's no reason to resort to a cy
pres settlement that provides, at best, indirect benefits to class
members.

The objecting plaintiffs are represented by Mr. King; Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi; Ward & Ward; and Bob Stein, who was one
of the co-lead counsel in the case.  Mr. Stein told me he couldn't
comment on the schism in negotiations, but said that Judge
Magnuson held a hearing on the proposed settlement on March 22.
The judge asked Mr. Gustafson and the other lawyers supporting
settlement for additional briefing, Mr. Stein said, but did not
indicate whether he would eventually approve the deal or not.

The NFL is represented by Faegre Baker Daniels and Debevoise &
Plimpton, which didn't return a call requesting comment.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces Class Suit for Concealing Emission Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Navistar International
concealed emissions problems with its engines and the stock price
fell by 69% when the truth came out, shareholders claim in Federal
Court.


OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court Skeptical About Class Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the Supreme Court
took up the question of arbitration again on March 25 in the case
of Oxford Health Plans vs. Sutter, and once again the conservative
justices seemed skeptical that the process designed to keep
disputes out of court should be open to class actions at all.

The Oxford case involves a dispute between doctors and the
insurance company over payments.  But the implications are far
greater.

Should the Court rule against the plaintiffs in Oxford, businesses
may gain a powerful tool for nipping class actions in the bud,
before they become bet-the-company gambles that force them to
settle on onerous terms.  One of the biggest impacts may come in
employment law, where class-action attorneys are pressing lawsuits
on behalf of thousands and even millions of employees over wages,
hours, discrimination and working conditions.

Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925 to encourage
litigants to settle their disputes without resorting to full-blown
litigation.  The law was designed to rein in judges who had
repeatedly ignored contracts requiring arbitration, perhaps out of
a deep-seated aversion to ceding control over litigation.

This exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and plaintiffs'
attorney Eric Katz, illustrates the still-simmering tension
between traditional trial law and arbitration.  Mr. Katz noted
that the Supreme Court has "recognized for two centuries" that
courts shouldn't reverse an arbitrator's decision except in
extraordinary situations.

"I'm sorry to just interrupt.  For most of that two centuries,
courts refused to enforce arbitration agreements," Justice Roberts
snapped back.  "That's the whole reason we have the FAA."

In Oxford, the judges must decide whether an arbitrator was out of
line by allowing a class action to proceed on behalf of some
20,000 doctors even though there was no provision for class
actions in the arbitration agreement between doctors and Oxford.
The court seemingly decided this question three years ago in
Stolt-Nielsen vs. Animal Feeds, when it held class arbitration
couldn't be forced on parties if they didn't agree to it.  The
decision, by Justice Samuel Alito, left open a very slim question
over whether under different circumstances an arbitrator could
determine that the parties might have agreed to class actions
although not in the explicit terms of the agreement.

Since then federal appeals courts have split on whether
arbitrators have the power to interpret agreements to allow class
actions.  In Oxford, the Supreme Court must decide whether that
practice can continue.

"I think Stolt-Nielsen actually does decide the issue," said
Richard Alfred, an employment lawyer with Seyfarth Shaw who is
watching this case closely.  "I think it the court will rule 6-3
in favor of Oxford Health Plans."

The oral arguments didn't appear to go well for the plaintiffs on
March 25.  Justices Alito and Anthony Kennedy sounded skeptical
arbitration, which is designed to be a streamlined process, was
compatible with class actions in the first place.  They asked
whether an arbitrator could be impartial when his fee would be
greatly magnified by ruling in favor of a lengthy class action,
instead of merely deciding the individual case in front of him.

The justices also questioned whether an arbitrator had the power
to bind thousands of absent class members, each of whom had signed
their own arbitration agreements, to a class action when they
might not want to belong to one.

Roberts made this point when he said "you are binding 19,999
individuals who did not agree to be bound" by the arbitrator's
decision.  Justice Scalia chimed in: "They didn't agree to this
arbitrator.  Why should they be bound by -- by whatever he says?"

For lawyers like Mr. Alfred, the stakes are large.  The Supreme
Court already has ruled, in AT&T vs. Concepcion, that consumers
can be required to go into individual arbitration instead of being
combined into large class actions.  Securities lawyers are looking
to use that precedent to hem in class actions over falling stock
prices, for example, and a case heard earlier this year, Italian
Colors vs. American Express, challenges the power of lawyers to
evade arbitration agreements in antitrust cases.

If Oxford wins, the action may shift to employment.

"Depending on how Oxford comes out, that will provide further
incentives for employers to provide arbitration agreements for all
employment types," Mr. Alfred said.

Consumer advocates -- and their well-heeled supporters, class-
action lawyers -- say arbitration is a process where the odds are
stacked in favor of employers and large corporations.  But
supporters of arbitration say class actions aren't any better,
providing minimal benefits to individual class members while
simultaneously exhausting their legal claims.  The only people who
make real money in class actions, critics say, are the lawyers on
both sides.

"Class arbitration is anything but an expeditious process,"
Mr. Alfred said.  "It's just not a procedure that lends itself to
a speedy resolution."


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Junk Suit vs. Smithtown Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 2010, and March 29, 2010, Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.,
a subsidiary of People's United Financial, Inc., and several of
its officers and directors were named in two lawsuits commenced in
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
(Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown Bancorp,
Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March 13,
2008, and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete.  As a result of the merger of Smithtown
with and into People's United Financial on November 30, 2010,
People's United Financial has become the successor party to
Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel.  The Court
approved the consolidation of the two lawsuits, with Waterford
Township named the lead plaintiff.  On December 23, 2011, People's
United Financial filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint and that
motion is still pending.

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

People's United Financial, Inc. -- http://www.peoples.com/-- is a
savings and loan holding company incorporated in Delaware and the
holding company for People's United Bank, a federally-chartered
stock savings bank headquartered in Bridgeport, Connecticut.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Strike Overdraft Fee Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Bank, a subsidiary of People's United Financial,
Inc., has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit (Marta Farb, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. People's
United Bank) arising from its assessment and collection of
overdraft fees on its checking account customers.  The complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District
of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011, and alleges that People's United
Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in the posting of
electronic debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar
amount.  The complaint also alleges that such practices were
inadequately disclosed to customers and were unfairly used by
People's United Bank for the purpose of generating revenue by
maximizing the number of overdrafts a customer is assessed.  The
complaint seeks certification of a class of checking account
holders residing in Connecticut and who have incurred at least one
overdraft fee, injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and
treble damages, disgorgement and restitution of overdraft fees
paid, and attorneys' fees.

On June 16, 2011, People's United Bank filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by
the court.  On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and on May 15, 2012, People's United Bank filed a
Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint.  That motion remains
pending.  Expedited discovery in this case began in July 2012.

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

People's United Financial, Inc. -- http://www.peoples.com/-- is a
savings and loan holding company incorporated in Delaware and the
holding company for People's United Bank, a federally-chartered
stock savings bank headquartered in Bridgeport, Connecticut.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit vs. Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary
against a wage and hour class action lawsuit initiated in
Connecticut, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. People's United Bank) based on
allegations that People's United Bank failed to pay overtime
compensation required by (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and (ii) the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs allege
that they were employed as "underwriters" and were misclassified
as exempt employees. The plaintiffs further allege that they
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were erroneously denied
overtime compensation as required by federal and state wage and
hour laws. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of
Connecticut on May 3, 2012. Since the complaint is brought under
both federal and state law, the complaint seeks certification of
two different but overlapping classes. The plaintiffs seek damages
in the amount of their respective unpaid overtime and minimum wage
compensation, liquidated damages and interest and attorneys' fees.
On June 29, 2012, People's United Bank filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses.

People's United Financial, Inc. -- http://www.peoples.com/-- is a
savings and loan holding company incorporated in Delaware and the
holding company for People's United Bank, a federally-chartered
stock savings bank headquartered in Bridgeport, Connecticut.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Still Awaits OK of $7.25BB Deal in Suit vs. VISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2005, a group of U.S. merchants filed a class action
lawsuit against VISA and MasterCard claiming that the way VISA and
MasterCard set interchange rates was a violation of anti-trust
laws.  In July 2012, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding to enter into a settlement to the lawsuit in which
VISA and MasterCard proposed to pay $7.25 billion to the merchants
($6.05 billion in cash and $1.2 billion from an eight month
reduction in credit card interchange).  People's United Financial,
Inc. says the proposed settlement is not expected to have a
significant impact on its financial results.

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

People's United Financial, Inc. -- http://www.peoples.com/-- is a
savings and loan holding company incorporated in Delaware and the
holding company for People's United Bank, a federally-chartered
stock savings bank headquartered in Bridgeport, Connecticut.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Kallick" Stockholder Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc., is facing a stockholder class action
lawsuit commenced by Jerald Kallick in Delaware, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On January 7, 2013, Jerald Kallick, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and each of the Company's current
directors.  On January 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended
class action complaint.  In his amended complaint, the plaintiff
seeks: (i) declaratory relief that certain change-in-control
provisions in the Company's indentures and credit agreement are
invalid and unenforceable, (ii) declaratory relief that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to approve
nominees for the Board of Directors submitted by a dissident
stockholder in order to avoid triggering the change-in-control
provisions, (iii) a mandatory injunction requiring the directors
to approve nominees for the Board of Directors submitted by the
dissident stockholder, (iv) a mandatory injunction prohibiting the
Company from paying the Company's CEO his change-in-control
benefits under his employment agreement in the event the CEO is
removed as a director, but remains employed as the Company's CEO,
(v) a mandatory injunction enjoining the defendants from impeding
or interfering with the dissident stockholder's consent
solicitation, (vi) a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants
to disclose all material information related to the change-in-
control provisions in the Company's indentures and credit
agreement; and (vii) an order requiring the Company's current
directors to account to the plaintiff and the putative class for
alleged damages.  The Company says it intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously and believes that at least part of the relief
sought is now moot.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. -- http://www.sandridgeenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company concentrating on
development and production activities in the Mid-Continent, Gulf
of Mexico and Permian Basin in west Texas.  The Company is
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc., is facing two securities class action
lawsuits in Oklahoma, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain of the Company's executive
officers.  On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a
substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same
court and against the same defendants.  In each case, the
plaintiffs allege that, between February 24, 2011, and
November 8, 2012, the defendants made false and misleading
statements, and omitted material information, concerning the
Company's oil reserves and business fundamentals, and engaged in a
scheme to deceive the market.  The plaintiffs seek, among other
relief, unspecified damages.  The Company says it intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.  Because these lawsuits have
only been recently filed, an estimate of reasonably possible
losses associated with them, if any, cannot be made until the
facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the
plaintiffs' claims and the Company's defenses are fully disclosed
and analyzed.  The Company has not established any reserves
relating to these actions.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. -- http://www.sandridgeenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company concentrating on
development and production activities in the Mid-Continent, Gulf
of Mexico and Permian Basin in west Texas.  The Company is
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SIM PROPERTIES: Seeks Dismissal of Tenants' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for Madison Record, reports that
SIM Properties says an Edwardsville couple has failed to allege
sufficient facts to state a cause of action in a lawsuit the
couple filed against the company.

Ronald and Dorothy Jones filed a lawsuit Jan. 31 in Madison County
Circuit Court against SIM and Idrees Muhammad.

According to the complaint, the Joneses rented a home owned by SIM
in the 600 block of Chapman Street, starting in June 2010.
Muhammad, a SIM employee, entered the house without consent in
2012 and removed the couple's possessions, including clothes and
furniture.

SIM Properties filed a motion to dismiss March 21, stating the
first amended complaint fails to identify by location or address
the "residential property" allegedly involved.

The complaint also fails to contain a plain and concise statement
as to whether the plaintiffs are attempting to state a cause of
action for trespass to personal property or real property,
according to the motion to dismiss.  The Joneses, individually and
on behalf of other SIM tenants, accuse the company of unlawful
penalty after it charged them $5 per day in late fees.

The plaintiffs' Feb. 4 motion for class certification, states a
class action lawsuit is the appropriate method to resolve the
matter compared to any other available method for the "fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy."

The plaintiffs are requesting to be appointed as class
representatives with representation from attorneys Peter J. Maag
and Thomas G. Maag of Wood River and Brian Wendler of
Edwardsville.

Jeffery A. Cain of Freeark, Harvey & Mendillo in Belleville
represents SIM Properties.

The case is assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge William
Mudge.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 13-L-161


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal From "Harkness" Suit Plea Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss all claims against Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc., in the class action lawsuit styled Harkness, et
al. v. The Boeing Company, et al., remains pending, according to
the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in early July
2007.  The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities.  The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit.  The plaintiffs assert several claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.  The putative class consists of
approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit.  The
parties agreed to class certification.  The sub-class members who
have asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those
individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in
Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had
at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in
jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55,
and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, are (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to
determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement
"bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that
were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by
Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were
unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits.  The plaintiffs initially sought a
declaration that they are entitled to the early retirement pension
benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that
the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of
contract claims and attorney fees.  Discovery is now complete and
currently pending is a motion filed jointly by plaintiffs and
Spirit on September 25, 2012, to dismiss all claims against Spirit
with prejudice.  Notices of a fairness hearing related to Spirit's
dismissal from this lawsuit have been sent to class members.  The
Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities are not subject to the
motion and will remain pending in the litigation.  Boeing has
notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to indemnification
from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may incur in the
Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset purchase
agreement from the Boeing Acquisition between Boeing and Spirit.
Spirit disputes Boeing's position on indemnity.

The Company's management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.spiritaero.com/--
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.  The
Company is an independent non-OEM (original equipment
manufacturer) aircraft parts designers and manufacturers of
commercial aerostructures, and an independent supplier of
aerostructures to The Boeing Company.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Individuals May Bring Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, has now set certain
deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to bring individual
discrimination claims against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.
and other defendants, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex
Partners LP and Onex Corporation (together with its affiliates,
"Onex"), and The Boeing Company alleging age discrimination in the
hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita
commercial division to Onex.  The complaint was filed in U.S.
District Court in Wichita, Kansas, and seeks class-action status,
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and more than $1.5
billion in punitive damages.  The asset purchase agreement from
the Boeing Acquisition requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing for
damages resulting from the employment decisions that were made by
the Company with respect to former employees of Boeing Wichita,
which relate or allegedly relate to the involvement of, or
consultation with, employees of Boeing in such employment
decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted
defendants' dispositive motions, finding that the case should not
be allowed to proceed as a class action.  Following plaintiffs'
appeal, on August 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court's ruling in all respects.  The
district court has now set certain deadlines for certain
prospective plaintiffs to bring individual claims.  In the event
this litigation continues, the Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself.  Management believes the resolution of
this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.spiritaero.com/
-- is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
The Company is an independent non-OEM (original equipment
manufacturer) aircraft parts designers and manufacturers of
commercial aerostructures, and an independent supplier of
aerostructures to The Boeing Company.


STANDARD FIRE: Congressional Intent Considered in Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business News, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Knowles v. Standard Fire rested
on what Congress intended to do when it enacted class-action
reforms eight years ago, according to Georgene Vairo, a law
professor at Loyola Law School at Los Angeles who wrote a book on
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

During oral arguments on Standard Fire's appeal in January, Chief
Justice John Roberts said it was difficult to speculate about
Congress' intent.

"Presumably, they may not have thought about the idea that there
will be class actions worth a lot more than $5 million but the
plaintiff's lawyer will only ask for less than $5 million," he
said.

In a brief, opposing counsel David Frederick told the Supreme
Court said that Knowles' case was "exactly as Congress intended"
because it capped the damages and limited the class to Arkansas
residents.

"This case therefore avoids all of the concerns of 'judicial
blackmail,' nationwide classes in state court, and other problems
at which CAFA was directed," Mr. Frederick wrote.

But the win for Standard Fire, Ms. Vairo said, now makes it easier
for defendants to move cases to federal court, which is where they
want to be.

"Plaintiffs think they have a better chance in front of a state
court judge, and they probably do," Ms. Vairo said.

But she added that both the plaintiffs' and defense attorneys are
committing malpractice if they don't attempt to get the litigation
in the jurisdiction where they think their client is going to get
the best deal.

"And both sides have all kinds of rules to play with to try to
achieve that goal," Ms. Vairo said.

She said she would be watching to see how the plaintiffs'
attorneys react to the ruling.  They still might craft their
lawsuits to limit their damages so they still fall under the
$5 million threshold, which would keep them in state court.


STANDARD FIRE: High Court Ruling to Rein Class Action Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business News, reports that
when he finally got his chance in front of the U.S. Supreme Court
on Jan. 7, Los Angeles attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. wasted no
time in complaining about the state of the court system in Miller
County, Arkansas.

Mr. Boutrous was formally representing Standard Fire Insurance Co.
But he spoke for dozens of other corporations that have complained
that Miller County Circuit Court is a legal backwater where
friendly elected judges help prolific local class-action attorneys
exploit a loophole in federal law to force giant settlements in
cases whose legal merits are never even considered.

The high court spoke about as strongly as it can: In a unanimous
decision requiring fewer than 500 words, the justices gave
Mr. Boutrous, Standard Fire and future class-action defendants a
giant win.

Meanwhile, the decision crippled a legal strategy of minimizing
the potential value of cases that had been remarkably successful
for the Texarkana law firm of Keil & Goodson and two Texas firms,
Nix Patterson & Roach and Crowley Norman.

In the seven years after Congress passed the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 in an attempt to rein in class-action abuses, those
three firms extracted more than $420 million in attorneys' fees
tied to out-of-court settlements -- not jury verdicts -- in 23
lawsuits, nearly all of them in Miller County. (How much money
went to the class members, the individuals who were allegedly
damaged, is less clear because the settlement agreements are often
sealed.)

The Supreme Court's decision "sends a pretty strong message that
what the plaintiffs had been doing was not appropriate," attorney
Jeremy Rosen of Encino, Calif., told Arkansas Business.  He had
filed a brief in support of Standard Fire.  "This should be enough
to send a message to the courts that [the Class Action Fairness
Act] means what it says and there are certain cases that Congress
had deemed belong in federal court."

Ironically, Knowles v. Standard Fire became the vehicle for
clarifying the rules under CAFA even though it was never actually
certified as a class-action case and only one plaintiff came
forward.

"This case illuminates certain unappetizing, unfair aspects of the
way trial lawyers have abused certain aspects of the class-action
system," attorney Dan Greenberg of Little Rock, former senior
counsel of the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC of Washington,
D.C., told Arkansas Business before the ruling last week.

Mr. Greenberg correctly predicted the Supreme Court's decision,
which he said would "rein in some of the trial lawyers' worst
excesses."

The case dates to March 2010, when hail damaged the Miller County
home of Greg Knowles.  Mr. Knowles -- represented by Keil &
Goodson of Texarkana, Ark., and Nix Patterson & Roach, which has
an office in Texarkana, Texas -- filed a lawsuit claiming that
Standard Fire didn't pay enough of his claim to cover a general
contractor's overhead and profit, which is 20 percent of an
estimated job.  Mr. Knowles said his Standard Fire agent never
told him he was entitled to receive the money for the contractor.

Mr. Knowles' lawsuit didn't say how much Standard Fire should have
paid for his specific claim.

But it did say this: Mr. Knowles sought to represent a class of
hundreds or thousands of Arkansas policyholders, and he and the
rest of the class would not seek more than $5 million in damages
and attorneys' fees.

Those two points are key.  Under CAFA, a lawsuit involving a class
of plaintiffs from multiple states can be moved out of a state
court and into federal court by motion of the defendants.
Similarly, the defendants can unilaterally move a class-action
case into federal court if the plaintiffs claim damages, including
attorneys' fees, of more than $5 million.

Having the plaintiff stipulate from the get-go that the case is
not worth more than a few million bucks might seem to be a good
thing.

But defendants in cases filed in Miller County by Keil & Goodson,
Nix Patterson and Houston-based Crowley Norman say the
stipulations were a ruse to keep the cases in front of friendly
local judges who would slow-walk defense motions while requiring
the defendants to comply with expensive, exhaustive "discovery"
demands for documents and other evidence.

Keil & Goodson partners Matt Keil and John C. Goodson, a member of
the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees and husband of
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson, didn't
return several calls seeking interviews about the Knowles case,
either before or after the Supreme Court's ruling.

Attorneys from Nix Patterson & Roach also didn't return calls for
comment, nor did Richard Norman, a Crowley Norman partner.

But their strategy has been consistent and undeniable. By January
2012, the three firms had filed more than 25 class-action
complaints in Arkansas state courts in which they stipulated,
before the cases were certified as class actions, that damages
would be less than $5 million "in order to try to evade federal
jurisdiction," according to a brief filed in one of those cases by
Little Rock defense attorney Lyn Pruitt.

The Supreme Court's decision "takes away from the plaintiffs a
huge ability to manipulate" where the case is filed, said Georgene
Vairo, a professor at Loyola Law School at Los Angeles and author
of "The Complete CAFA: Analysis & Developments Under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005."

"It's definitely a win for the defendants," she said.

Class-action defendants, especially those whose cases are assigned
to Miller County Circuit Judge Kirk Johnson, have had a hard time
getting a hearing to determine whether there's enough of a legal
question to even warrant discovery, said Mr. Rosen, the California
lawyer who had filed a brief in support of Standard Fire.

Judge Johnson didn't return calls for comment.

After a case is filed in Miller County, Mr. Rosen said, the
plaintiffs' attorneys begin pummeling defendants with requests to
produce -- at their own expense -- thousands or even millions of
pages of documents.  The discovery costs alone could run into the
millions, often more than the $5 million to which the plaintiffs
have voluntarily limited total damages, before the case is even
certified as a class action.  Defendants complained that they had
to comply with costly discovery demands even before they could get
a hearing to determine whether they even belong in the lawsuit.

A judge in federal court, on the other hand, would set a hearing
for the defendants "right away" to determine if the case is worthy
of moving forward with discovery, Rosen said.

Defendants, he said, were being "forced into this Catch-22.  They
either have to spend a ton of money on discovery for years being
stuck in limbo or settle.  And that's sort of where the plaintiffs
want them."

But not just any state court will do, according to Ted Frank, a
founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness.

"If you don't have the right to take these cases to federal court,
the plaintiffs get to pick where they file their case," Frank told
Arkansas Business.  "All they have to do is find the one friendly
jurisdiction.  For a long time, it was Madison County in southern
Illinois, and now it looks like it's Miller County."

Standard Fire wanted no part of Miller County justice, which had
become infamous among defense attorneys.  Even as they accused the
plaintiffs of "forum shopping," defense attorneys were also trying
to choose the most favorable court for their clients.

But to bring the roof repair case under federal jurisdiction,
Standard Fire found itself in the unenviable position of having to
argue that Greg Knowles' class-action case was actually worth more
in damages than Knowles and his attorneys were seeking.

On Dec. 2, 2011, U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III of Fort Smith
denied Standard Fire's request to move to federal court because
Knowles had stipulated that damages and costs wouldn't exceed $5
million.  The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear
the case.

Standard Fire then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to "determine
whether CAFA is a strong remedy for state court abuses in class
actions, as Congress expressly intended, or if it has a loophole
that allows plaintiff's lawyers to easily avoid federal
jurisdiction."

The highest court announced in August that it would take the case
and then heard oral arguments on the first Monday in January.  The
ruling sends the Knowles case back to U.S. District Court.

The importance of the $5 million question to the Keil & Goodson
legal strategy was underscored when partner John Goodson's wife,
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson, attended
the oral argument in the Knowles case.  Afterward, she met briefly
with Justice Antonin Scalia, who had been apprised of her
husband's interest in the case.

Mr. Boutrous, the lawyer for Standard Fire, told the high court
that, by enacting the Class Action Fairness Act, Congress intended
to quash the kind of legal shenanigans being perpetrated by
plaintiffs' attorneys that kept class-action cases in friendly
state courts.

He told the justices that plaintiff Knowles shouldn't be allowed
to "affect or jeopardize or undermine the claims of absent
individuals" by stipulating that the damages wouldn't be more than
$5 million.

As discovery in state court starts, Mr. Boutrous said, he feared
that another policyholder might step forward and say the damages
are worth more, and the next plaintiff wouldn't be bound by
Knowles' stipulation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what was wrong with that scenario,
since that would allow the case to be moved to federal court.
Mr. Boutrous said waiting for another plaintiff wouldn't solve the
problem defendants are having with onerous and expensive discovery
requests in the meantime.

He said the stipulation on damages was designed solely "to keep
the case in state court, contrary to Congress' intent."

In Miller County, "it's not speedy justice," Mr. Boutrous said.
"It takes five or six years to get a hearing on anything and then
there's no hearing, even on class certification."

David Frederick, a Washington, D.C., attorney, argued the case for
homeowner Greg Knowles, but he was, in effect, representing the
lawyers who have made the $5 million stipulation a centerpiece of
their business plan.

He said any proposed class representative and his attorneys always
make a number of strategic judgments on how best to handle a
class-action case.  "And that entails judgments about whether to
assert various legal theories here," he said.

Mr. Frederick said Congress didn't want every class-action case
going to federal court because the courts didn't have the money to
deal with the potential wave of lawsuits.

At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked Mr. Frederick
why the Knowles case was filed in Miller County Circuit Court.

"Because these are Texarkana lawyers who filed on behalf of all
Arkansas residents and Texarkana, Ark., is a jurisdiction in
Arkansas," he said.


STANDARD FIRE: K&L Gates Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Forbes, Esq., Ryan M. Tosi, Esq., David D. Christensen,
Esq., and Matthew N. Lowe, Esq., at K&L Gates LLP report that the
U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its first decision reviewing
the scope of removal jurisdiction under the federal Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).  In Knowles v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.,
No. 11-1450 (U.S.), the Supreme Court unanimously held that a
putative class representative cannot avoid federal jurisdiction by
stipulating that the class will not seek damages in excess of the
CAFA $5 million jurisdictional minimum.  Specifically, the Court
ruled that a putative class representative cannot bind the
putative class before a class is certified. [1] In doing so, the
Court eliminated plaintiffs' use of stipulations aimed at
manipulating CAFA's jurisdictional provisions in an attempt to
confine cases to "plaintiff friendly" state courts. [2]

Before Congress enacted CAFA, a putative class action could only
be filed in or removed to federal court if the case presented a
federal question or satisfied principles of traditional diversity
jurisdiction. [3] Traditional diversity jurisdiction requires,
among other things, that at least one named plaintiff have an
amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.  Importantly, the
claims of named plaintiffs and putative class members pre-CAFA
could not be aggregated to satisfy the amount in controversy
threshold.  Because class actions involving millions of dollars
and issues of national concern could be restricted to state
courts, Congress enacted CAFA to expand the ability of federal
courts to preside over class actions. [4]

In Knowles, the representative plaintiff filed a class action
complaint in Arkansas state court and a stipulation that the
representative plaintiff would not "seek damages for [himself] or
any other individual class member in excess of $75,000 (inclusive
of costs and attorneys' fees) or seek damages for the class as
alleged in the complaint to which this stipulation is attached in
excess of $5,000,000 in the aggregate (inclusive of costs and
attorneys' fees)."  The defendant, Standard Fire Insurance
Company, removed the case to federal court under CAFA and
submitted evidence showing that the class damages, if recovered,
would exceed the $5 million CAFA jurisdictional threshold.  The
District Court nevertheless remanded the case to state court based
on the representative plaintiff's stipulation, which purported to
limit damages to less than $5 million. [5]

The Supreme Court held that (1) the plaintiff's stipulation could
not alter CAFA's aggregation analysis for jurisdictional purposes,
(2) the District Court should have disregarded the stipulation,
and (3) the District Court should have conducted CAFA's
jurisdictional analysis by "adding up the value of the claim of
each person who falls within the definition of Knowles's proposed
class and determine whether the resulting sum exceeds $5 million"
at the time the complaint was filed. [6] The Court concluded that
stipulations in putative class actions can only be effective if
they are binding and that in a putative class action, a class
representative "cannot legally bind members of the proposed class
before the class is certified." [7] Thus, "[t]he stipulation
Knowles proffered to the District Court .  .  . does not speak for
those he purports to represent." [8] Because Knowles "lacked the
authority to concede the amount-in-controversy issue for the
absent class members," his "precertification stipulation does not
bind anyone but himself, [and] Knowles has not reduced the value
of the putative class members' claims." [9] According to the
Supreme Court, to rule otherwise, would "run directly counter to
CAFA's primary objective [of] ensuring Federal court consideration
of interstate cases of national importance." [10]

The Supreme Court's first CAFA decision is significant.  Class
action plaintiffs can no longer use a stipulation to set an
artificial cap on the class members' damages in the attempt to bar
removal of an action otherwise removable under CAFA. [11] And the
Supreme Court made clear that lower courts must abide by the test
for CAFA jurisdiction as set forth in the statute: determine the
actual value in controversy as alleged in the complaint and
aggregate the claims of the putative class members.  With Knowles,
the Court preserves "CAFA's primary objective: ensuring 'Federal
court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.'"
[12] Without doubt, in certain cases, the plaintiffs' class action
bar will devise and employ other methods to avoid federal CAFA
jurisdiction.  The unanimous decision in Knowles, however,
reflects a strong first statement by the Supreme Court that may be
a sign of things to come.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on March 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Star
Scientific, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action
filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of
Virginia, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Star
Scientific between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013, both dates
inclusive of.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result
of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Star Scientific securities
during the Class Period, you have until May 24, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Star Scientific produces products that assist in maintaining a
healthy metabolism and lifestyle.  Amongst various offerings, the
Company sells a dietary supplement which purportedly helps a body
maintain a healthy level of inflammation, and a cream that
improves the appearance of the skin.  Additional products in
development address Hashimoto's thyroiditis and neurological
disorders including Alzheimer's disease.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that the Company engaged in potentially
illegal transactions involving certain private placements and
related party transactions since 2006 involving Star Scientific
securities.

On January 23, 2013, The Street published an article alleging,
among other things, that the Company misled investors regarding
John Hopkins University's involvement in Star Scientific's
clinical testing of its retail nutritional supplement Anatabine.
On this news, Star Scientific shares declined $0.31 per share or
nearly 12%, to close at $2.44 per share.

In January and February 2013 the Company received subpoenas from
the US Attorney's office investigating transactions in the
Company's securities, including related party transactions, dating
back to 2006.

On March 18, 2013, the Company disclosed this investigation to
investors, announcing that the Company and its directors had
received subpoenas from the US Attorney's office.  The Company
also announced that it was conducting an internal investigation
regarding these transactions.

On this news Star Scientific shares declined $0.35 per share or
nearly 18% to $1.63 on March 19, 2013.  As a result of defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

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


TRIPLE J: Recalls 15,270 Pounds of Bone-In Ribeye Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Triple J Family Farms, a Buffalo Lake, Minnesota establishment, is
recalling approximately 15,270 pounds of bone-in ribeye products
because the vertebral column may not have been completely removed,
which is not compliant with regulations that require the removal
of vertebral column in cattle 30 months of age or older, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall are:

   * Approx. 40-lb. boxes of "BEEF B/I RIB," bearing any of the
     following case codes: "91-R109H-C," "91-R109H-S,"
     "91-R109H-C-SB," or "91-R109H-S-SB."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"EST.17466" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
produced and packaged on various dates between February  8, 2013,
and March 21, 2013, and were distributed to an FSIS-inspected
establishment in New York for further processing and distribution.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine specified risk
material (SRM) verification and may have occurred as a result of a
recent change in the Company's carcass separation practices.
Vertebral column is considered a SRM and must be removed from
cattle of 30 months of age or older in accordance with FSIS
regulations.  SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective
agent in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE), as well as materials that are closely associated with these
potentially infective tissues.  Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs
from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the
BSE agent.  There is no indication that any of the cattle
slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
Company's HR and Office Manager, Kendra Williams, at (320) 833-
2001.  Media with questions about the recall should contact the
Company's QA Manager, Russell Harris, at (320) 833-0107.

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


UBER: Faces Allegations of Improperly Skimming Drivers' Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Harkinson, writing for Mother Jones, reports that hailing a
taxi in San Francisco used to be about as easy as panning for
gold, but that was before the advent of Uber, the San Francisco-
based tech company that's shaking up the taxi and town-car
businesses in major cities.

"It is the best thing, my friend!" my beaming driver, Solomon
Alemayhu, said of the GPS-based cab-hailing service.  He likes the
convenience factor so much, in fact, that he's willing to overlook
allegations that Uber is improperly skimming from its drivers'
tips.

According to the company Web site, Uber's smartphone-based payment
system automatically adds to the rider's tab a $1 booking fee plus
a 20 percent gratuity "for the driver."  Mr. Alemaythu said half
of that gratuity actually goes to Uber.  If that's true -- and
Uber insists that it is not -- then the company would be
misleading consumers and breaking the law in some cities.

In Boston, for instance, Uber faces a class-action lawsuit over
the tip-skimming allegation.  Filed in late December on behalf of
taxi driver David Lavitman, it accuses Uber of violating a state
law stipulating that "no employer or other person" may take any
portion of a worker's gratuity.  The lawsuit refers to a company
document that explains how Uber and the driver divide the
earnings: "We will automatically deposit the metered fare + 10%
tip to your bank account each week," it says.  It cites the
following example of how Uber would handle a $10 fare:

Uber Boston general manager Mike Pao says the document was just a
promotional handout and doesn't reflect Uber's actual partnership
agreement with drivers.  "Since we launched here in Boston, the
agreement with taxi driver partners has been that 10 percent of
the metered fare goes to Uber as a marketing fee," he insists.
"Uber does not touch the tip."

When Mother Jones' Josh Harkinson asked for a copy of Uber's
partnership agreement, he referred him to an Uber "terms and
conditions" page that lacks specific details about how Uber and
drivers share profits.  Mr. Harkinson repeated his request to
Uber's national PR guy, Kenneth Baer, but only received another
statement from Pao: "Uber takes 10% of the metered fare as
commission, plus the rider's $1 booking fee, and all drivers are
told this during the on-boarding process."

The next day, Uber's explanation of its tips policy seemed to have
changed again [see below for comment from Uber].  "We don't take
our cut from the fare or the tip," Uber's head of policy, Corey
Owens, told me when I ran into him outside Uber's headquarters.
"What happens is that the driver pays Uber a commission based on
the services rendered."  He added that the commission amount
varies widely depending on city and partner company and refused to
cite any specific numbers.

Uber is just "backtracking off of what was very clearly the
arrangement between it and the drivers from the beginning,"
contends Lavitman's attorney, Hillary Schwab.

To some drivers, the wording of the deal may not matter so much --
the company's "commission" would be the same whether it's half of
a 20 percent gratuity or a 10 percent surcharge on the fare.  The
distinction may matter more to passengers, however.  In October,
Uber rider Caren Ehret filed a class-action lawsuit in Chicago
arguing that its practice of snapping up a portion of the
"gratuity" charge had defrauded her and other passengers by making
the "metered fare" appear misleadingly low.  "She has a right for
her gratuity to be remitted to the driver," contends Ehret's
attorney, Hall Adams III.

These skirmishes highlight the types of challenges faced by
startups aiming to buck an established industry with smartphone-
based transportation apps.  The San Francisco ride-sharing
services Lyft and SideCar rely on drivers who lack taxi
medallions; they bypass the regulated market by asking riders for
"voluntary donations" in lieu of fares.  Uber also features town-
car services called Uber Black and Uberx (a lower-cost version
that utilizes hybrids) -- and it's planning to enter the ride-
sharing market too.  All of these services appeal to consumers
because they're cheap, convenient, and allow people to rate their
drivers, adding a layer of accountability to an industry with
notoriously bad customer service.

Yet Uber's honeymoon with its hometown may be coming to an end.
With increasing competition, it recently cut its town car fares in
San Francisco by 10 percent.  Late last year, the California
Public Utilities Commission threatened Uber with $20,000 fine for
allegedly ignoring insurance regulations, then began drafting a
new set of ride sharing rules that could give Uber the squeeze.

This past November, two long-time San Francisco cabbies filed a
class-action lawsuit against Uber claiming that it breaks the law
by dispatching limos and town cars that are not licensed as taxis.
"Simply stated, Uber's 'partner' drivers, who are operating
without restriction, are taking passengers, and thus income, away
from legally sanctioned taxicab drivers who are literally playing
by the rules," the suit says.

"My biggest beef with these guys is that this app is allowing them
to break the law, and the Pubic Utilities Commission is allowing
them to get away with it, because they have $50-million venture
capitalists as backers," says Barry Korengold, the president of
the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association.  "The cab drivers don't
have that kind of money to hire lawyers to fight this."

Uber's defenders write off the complaints as sour grapes from a
monopolistic industry that loathes competition and accountability.
But the grumbling is growing among Uber's own partners; in recent
weeks, dozens of Uber Black drivers have picketed the company's
San Francisco headquarters over what they consider unfair labor
practices.  A banner held up on March 22 read, "Stop stealing our
tips!"


UNITED TECH: Faces Class Action Over Laid-Off Workers' Stock
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that United
Technologies Corp. was hit on March 22 with a putative class
action in New Jersey federal court filed by a former employee who
says the technology conglomerate laid him off, then took back
company stock it had issued him as an incentive to further his
education.  Richard Grisafi's suit accuses United Technologies of
eliminating his job through a reduction-in-force, then draining a
stock account worth about $13,000, stock he says he earned as part
of the company's employee scholar program.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Appeal From Dismissal of Delaware Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit in Delaware remains pending, according to Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of
Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP"), a Vanguard Natural Resources,
LLC subsidiary, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the unitholders of ENP.
Another purported unitholder of ENP, William Allen, filed a
similar action in the same court on April 14, 2011.  The Bushansky
and Allen actions have been consolidated under the caption In re:
Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-VCP
(the "Delaware State Court Action").  On December 28, 2011, those
plaintiffs jointly filed their second amended consolidated class
action complaint naming as defendants ENP, Scott W. Smith, Richard
A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David
C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard.  That putative class
action complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants
breached the partnership agreement by recommending a transaction
that was not fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages.  Vanguard filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  On
August 31, 2012, the Chancery Court entered an order granting
Vanguard's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim and dismissing the Delaware State Court Action with
prejudice.  On September 27, 2012, Mr. Allen filed a notice of
appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit.

Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC -- http://www.vnrllc.com/-- is a
Delaware publicly traded limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  The Company focused on the acquisition and
development of mature, long-lived oil and natural gas properties
in the United States of America.  Through its operating
subsidiaries, the Company owns properties and oil and natural gas
reserves.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Consolidated Suit vs. ENP Dismissed in Nov.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC was dismissed in November 2012,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On March 29, 2011, John O'Neal, a purported unitholder of Encore
Energy Partners LP ("ENP"), a Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC
subsidiary, filed a putative class action petition in the 125th
Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of
unitholders of ENP.  Similar petitions were filed on April 4,
2011, by Jerry P. Morgan and on April 5, 2011, by Herbert F. Rower
in other Harris County district courts.  The O'Neal, Morgan, and
Rower lawsuits were consolidated on June 5, 2011, as John O'Neal
v. Encore Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case Number 2011-19340.
On July 28, 2011, Michael Gilas filed a class action petition in
intervention.  On July 26, 2011, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated O'Neal action filed an amended putative class action
petition against ENP, its general partner Encore Energy Partners
GP, LLC ("ENP GP"), Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas
Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin
G. White, and Vanguard.  That putative class action petition and
Gilas' petition in intervention both alleged that the named
defendants were (i) violating duties owed to ENP's public
unitholders by, among other things, failing to properly value ENP
and failing to protect against conflicts of interest or (ii) were
aiding and abetting such breaches.  Plaintiffs sought an
injunction prohibiting the merger from going forward and
compensatory damages if the merger was consummated.

On October 3, 2011, the Court appointed Bull & Lifshitz, counsel
for plaintiff-intervenor Gilas, as interim lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class.  On October 21, 2011, the court signed an
order staying this lawsuit pending resolution of the Delaware
State Court Action, subject to plaintiffs' right to seek to lift
the stay for good cause.  On November 15, 2012, the consolidated
lawsuit was dismissed.

Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC -- http://www.vnrllc.com/-- is a
Delaware publicly traded limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  The Company focused on the acquisition and
development of mature, long-lived oil and natural gas properties
in the United States of America.  Through its operating
subsidiaries, the Company owns properties and oil and natural gas
reserves.


VISA INC: ARPC Completes Settlement Notification Program
--------------------------------------------------------
ARPC on March 26 disclosed that it has completed the creation of a
new notification program and funds allocation model for a class
action settlement regarding credit card currency conversion
practices.  The $336 million settlement involved some 40 million
potential claimants.  It resolved numerous lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard, Diner's Club and their member banks.

These companies were accused of not adequately disclosing the
credit and debit card conversion charges on foreign currency
transactions made by their customers during a ten-year timeframe.
Under the court settlement, the credit card companies and banks
had to notify their card users of these unfair charges and develop
an equitable formula to reimburse them.  The payment distribution
concluded in 2012.

After an initial notification program was launched and yielded an
unsatisfactory response rate as well as numerous complaints about
complicated claims procedures the Court ordered an alternative
approach.  ARPC was then retained to create a new notification
program that would yield substantially higher response rates.

ARPC created a multi-pronged communication program that not only
accomplished a higher response rate, but delivered nearly twice
the industry standard response rate for comparable cases.  Next,
ARPC applied its expertise in crafting statistical models to
design an equitable method for distributing the settlement funds.
This new distribution method was approved by the Court for paying
claimants.

"ARPC was hired to handle this matter because of our unique
combination of specialized skills and extensive experience
managing class action settlements in complex, high-value cases,"
explained John Brophy, ARPC Partner.  "Our team is well versed in
both the notification phase of class action settlements as well as
the design and implementation of equitable claim payment methods
and procedures," he elaborated.

"While we are most recognized for our rigorous analytical
capabilities for supporting corporations, law firms and
governments facing serious legal issues, we are also leaders in
all aspects of designing and administering the complex settlements
that arise from litigation," added Tom Florence, Ph.D., and
Founding Partner of ARPC.

ARPC has just published a case study detailing their role and
methodology in this credit card litigation settlement.  The case
number is 01-md-01409.

ARPC -- http://www.arpc.com-- is an economic and management
consulting firm that provides statistical, econometric and
financial analysis to clients facing complex legal and business
challenges.  ARPC provides services in a wide variety of cases
involving mass torts and product liability, antitrust,
intellectual property, securities litigation, bankruptcy, and
settlement administration.  The Company headquarters are located
in Washington, D.C.


WATKINS SECURITY: Judge Rejects Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Watkins Security Agency and
its D.C. affiliate cannot dismiss a class action alleging that
they failed to compensate school security guards who worked
through lunch breaks, a federal judge ruled.


WEBMD HEALTH: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed in January
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities lawsuit against WebMD Health Corp. was
dismissed in January 2013, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 2, 2011, and August 26, 2011, federal securities class
action complaints entitled Canson v. WebMD Health Corp., et al.
and Malland v. WebMD Health Corp., et al., respectively, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
Common Stock between February 23, 2011, and July 15, 2011.  On
November 7, 2011, the two cases were consolidated under the
caption In re WebMD Health Corp. Securities Litigation (the
"Federal Securities Action") and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
were appointed.  On February 14, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed
their consolidated amended complaint (the "Complaint"), which
alleges claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 23, 2011, and January 10, 2012.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company, and certain of its officers, made false
and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified damages and costs.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and the lead plaintiffs
opposed that motion.  The motion was fully submitted and filed on
August 2, 2012.  On November 8, 2012, the Court heard oral
argument on defendants' motion to dismiss.

On January 2, 2013, the Court issued an opinion and order (the
"Opinion and Order") dismissing all claims asserted in the
Complaint, but granted the lead plaintiffs leave to replead within
sixty days.

WebMD Health Corp. -- http://www.WebMD.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in New York.  The Company is a provider of
health information services to consumers, physicians and other
healthcare professionals, employers and health plans through its
public and private online portals, mobile platforms and health-
focused publications.


WELLS FARGO: Required to Offer Loan Modifications, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo
is required to offer permanent loan modifications to homeowners
who meet conditions under a trial period plan, lawyers for a class
of distressed homeowners told the 9th Circuit Wednesday.

A federal judge had dismissed two class actions accusing the bank
of offering temporary loan modifications without the intention of
making them permanent -- one of the conditions of accepting
federal bailout money in 2008.

Bailed-out banks like Wells Fargo, which received $25 million in
Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, are required to participate
in the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, a government program that
gives banks "incentive payments" for issuing permanent loan
modifications.

Under HAMP, loan servicers must provide a trial period plan
followed by an agreement outlining the terms of the final
modification.

In his dismissal, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the
homeowners failed to state a claim for breach of contract and
unfair debt collection practices.

Plaintiffs Phillip Corvello and Karen and Jeffrey Lucia appealed
that decision to the 9th Circuit.

Corvello's attorney, Leslie Hurst, argued before the three-judge
panel Wednesday that her client qualified for a permanent loan
modification and had fulfilled his obligations under the trial
period plan.

Wells Fargo allegedly agreed to let Corvello know within 30 days
of submitting his application, in writing, if he did not qualify
for a permanent modification.  The bank let him make subsequent
payments but did not respond within 30 days.

Hurst compared the scenario to the appellate ruling in Wigod v.
Wells Fargo, which she argued held that if trial period plan
conditions are met, the loan servicer must offer a permanent loan
modification.

"In Wigod, Wells Fargo signaled to the borrower that they
qualified," Hurst said.  "Here they didn't respond within 30 days
as required, which therefore communicated you are O.K."

The bank allegedly kept Corvello's next two payments after saying
it would not keep the payments if he did not qualify for a
permanent modification.

If a borrower meets the conditions in a trial period plan, Hurst
said, then the bank "has to give him the option of entering into a
permanent modification agreement, which in turn turns into a
modified, secured mortgage."

Instead, she said, Wells Fargo foreclosed on his home.

Corvello claims he relied on Wells Fargo's promises that if he
complied with the trial period plan he would be offered a
permanent modification.  As a result, he did things he otherwise
would not have done, including sending in extra documentation,
agreeing to credit counseling and opening an escrow account.

Hurst argued that such actions should be interpreted as sufficient
consideration.

When Circuit Judge Mary Murguia mentioned that cases dealing with
this matter are "all over the place," Hurst replied that while
trial court decisions are split, appellate decisions are not.  The
appellate courts "say the servicer has to offer loan modifications
if the conditions are met," Hurst said.

Gretchen Carpenter, arguing for Karen and Jeffrey Garcia in the
related case, agreed with Hurst and claimed that Wigod has been
adopted as a statement under California law that if conditions are
met in a trial period plan, then the lender has to offer a loan
modification.

She asked for damages, injunctive relief that sets aside certain
foreclosures and an order to offer modifications.

Irene Friedel, a lawyer for Wells Fargo, said the lower court's
dismissal "required common sense." "Borrowers can't be offered
modifications if they don't qualify," Friedel said.

She argued that in Wigod, the borrower was deemed qualified.  In
this case, she continued, there was no indication that the
borrowers were qualified. Wigod says the borrower has to be
qualified.

"I urge the court to read Wigod," she said.

Judge Mary Schroeder said that she could not understand how Wells
Fargo could say the Lucias and Corvello did not qualify when no
decision was made as to whether they qualify.

Friedel replied that the lender cannot modify a loan without the
borrower actually being qualified, despite the bank's failure to
respond within 30 days.

"There was no signal here to the borrowers that they qualify," she
said.  "That distinguishes this case from Wigod."

"The 7th Circuit found [qualification] had to happen," she added.
"It cannot be that the right is waived.  The HAMP settlement
between the banks and the federal government says banks must re-
review loan modification requests.  We offered to re-review the
Lucias'.  They declined, saying they deserved a modification."

When pressed about whether the bank has to respond to requests for
modification, Friedel said it did respond: Corvello was told he
did not qualify, and the Lucias were asked for more documents.

She also agreed that Wells Fargo was bound to respond.

"We are bound to follow HAMP guidelines," she said. "We can't
simply decide not to respond.  And we must give them modifications
if they qualify."

Judge Schroeder asked, "If your position is that they don't
qualify, why not tell them that? Why try to dismiss now?"

Friedel replied, "We made no commitment that they qualify.  The
decision will just be put off to another day after lots of
discovery.  They have to allege a plausible claim to open the door
to discovery. They can't even do that."

Hurst is a partner with Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon in San Diego.
Carpenter is a partner with Strange & Carpenter in Los Angeles,
and Irene Friedel is a partner with K&L Gates in Boston.

The three-judge panel also included Judge John Noonan.


YOPLAIT: Settles Class Action Over Yo-Plus False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennie Olson, writing for KSTC-TV, reports that if you purchased
Yoplait's Yo-Plus branded yogurt products over the past few years,
you may be eligible for a cash payment.  As part of a recently-
settled class-action lawsuit against parent company General Mills,
based in Golden Valley, customers who bought certain yogurt
products between July of 2007 and July of 2012 can submit a claim.

The company was accused of falsely advertising the digestive
health benefits of the Yo-Plus products, though General Mills
maintains the settlement isn't an admission of wrongdoing.

To submit a claim, visit http://www.yoplussettlement.com/faq


* China's NPC May Allow Consumers to File Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
David Hong, writing for Minyanville's Wall Street, reports that
the National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislative
body, is in the process of revising China's consumer protection
law and is considering some significant changes.  Although
revising the Consumer Rights Protection Law, instituted nearly two
decades ago, is the primary topic of discussion for the NPC, the
group is also weighing the option of allowing class action
lawsuits against Chinese corporations.  The NPC also wants to
grant additional powers to the China Consumers' Association,
China's primary consumer protection agency.

                         Hong Kong Regime

It's not just mainland China that is considering allowing class
action lawsuits; the Law Reform Commission (LRC) of Hong Kong,
which is the statutory body responsible for improving Hong Kong's
legislation, also published a proposal last May regarding class
action claims.  In Hong Kong, class action lawsuits do not exist
and plaintiffs must still bring a civil case in an individual
capacity.  The LRC proposal recommended a phasing in of class
action cases to avoid a deluge of civil litigation.

The biggest hurdle with instituting class action courses of action
in a jurisdiction like Hong Kong is the financial ramifications of
these lawsuits.  In the US, lawyers can take a case on a
contingency basis where clients do not pay upfront and the lawyers
get compensated once the judgment is passed; US lawyers can
receive up to one-third of the entire judgment if they win the
case.  Such a process allows the lawyers to bear the risk of
losing the claim, and not the plaintiffs.

Unlike the US, Hong Kong prohibits contingency fee arrangements in
contentious proceedings.  Therefore, in Hong Kong, the plaintiffs
will have to bear the financial risk of losing their case because
the losers have to pay for the winners' costs associated with
litigation, including attorneys' fees.  In Hong Kong, it seems the
taxpayers would bear the financial burden associated with such
class action claims as these lawsuits would probably be funded
through the Consumer Council's Consumer Legal Action Fund of Hong
Kong.

Back in 2011, a proposed draft amendment to the People's Republic
of China Civil Procedure Law recommended that "relevant
authorities and social organizations" be able to file class action
lawsuits to defend public interests with a focus on environmental
hazards and food safety.  In the past decade, less than 20
lawsuits concerning public interests have been filed and nearly
all of them have focused on environmental protection. However, no
decision on this proposed amendment has been made publicly
available.

It looks like China is following the same path as Hong Kong in
providing more protection to its consumers.  However, unlike Hong
Kong, China allows lawyers to operate on a contingency fee
arrangement.  Allowing class action lawsuits will lower the burden
on individual consumers and help them better fight against large
corporations that -- generally speaking -- are better equipped to
defend against these claims. Part of the current five-year plan
aims to lessen the income inequality gap and bring up the living
standards of poor Chinese, a large majority of the population.
Allowing collective class action claims will enable
unsophisticated and uneducated Chinese access to the legal system
and justice that they may not have had before.

                        Punitive Damages

One of the considerations facing the NPC as it looks to update the
consumer protection law is whether to begin instituting punitive
damages -- that is, fines that can be imposed on defendants for
creating a product or situation that can cause damage to consumers
or that do not comply with national regulations, above and beyond
any actual reported damages.  Without the fear of punitive
damages, companies have less incentive to be compliant with laws
and standards because the penalty for any broken law would only be
compensatory -- that is, based on the cost of the actual damages
or losses endured.  In China, where there is no risk of punitive
damages, it currently makes more economic and business sense to
deal with problems as they arise.

In the United States, companies live in fear of punitive damages
because judgments could be a hundred times the actual damages or
losses; therefore, it makes sense to make sure you are doing
everything right, instead of risking a huge penalty.  For example,
in the case of Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the plaintiff was
awarded $821,485.50 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in
punitive damages.  Had it happened in China, the compensation
would most likely have only been the $821,485.50.


* Judge Balks at Prenda Lawyer's Class Action Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Lee, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Paul
Hansmeier, widely regarded as a ringleader for the prolific
copyright trolling firm Prenda Law, has been having a rough year.
After a Minnesota man accused his firm of identity theft,
Mr. Hansmeier gave remarkably evasive answers to questions posed
by defense attorneys.  Upon reading the transcript, a judge
declared that "someone has a lot to hide."  The judge has since
ordered Mr. Hansmeier and his Prenda colleagues to his courtroom
on April 2.  Prenda has begun to backpedal, dismissing pending
copyright cases around the country.

While his copyright trolling business is on the ropes,
Mr. Hansmeier has plowed ahead in another area of his practice:
class action law.  The tactics he has employed in his class action
cases will be familiar to those who are familiar with
Mr. Hansmeier's copyright litigation.  In both sets of cases,
Mr. Hansmeier has acted on behalf of friends, family, and business
associates, not strangers.  And in both instances, opponents have
accused him of using the threat of burdensome litigation to
extract nuisance settlements from his adversaries.

When the parties to a class action settlement reach an agreement,
members of the class have the option to object to the settlement.
And if those objections are overruled, the objecting member can
appeal the settlement.  The lengthy appeals process can tie up the
settlement money for years.  So a new cottage industry of
"professional objectors" has emerged.  They threaten to tie up
settlement money in years of litigation, hoping that the
plaintiff's attorney will buy them off.

The blog Fight Copyright Trolls discovered that Mr. Hansmeier
appears to have gotten into the professional objecting game.  In
one case, the Hertz rental car company had been fighting a class
action lawsuit since 2007.  A settlement was reached, and in
October 2012 Paul Hansmeier objected to the settlement on behalf
of his father Gordon Hansmeier.  Then he sent a letter to the
plaintiff's lawyer, Dennis Stewart.

"This letter is to advise you that an objection will be filed to
your proposed settlement," Mr. Hansmeier wrote, enclosing a copy
of his objection.  "I will extend to you an offer to settle this
matter with my client for $30,000.00."

Stewart was not intimidated. "If you present this objection, it is
clear that it will have been presented for an 'improper purpose'"
-- that is, as an effort to extort money from Mr. Stewart.  And
Mr. Stewart represented the other injured plaintiff, not the
defendant.  "Please be advised that we consider this conduct to be
improper and sanctionable," Mr. Stewart wrote.

"The idea that you would respond to a demand letter which you
requested by threatening sanctions is unconscionable and wholly
beyond the pale," Mr. Hansmeier responded. He accused Stewart of
"hardball tactics designed to intimidate my client."  In a court
filing, he described Stewart's threats as a "bold and improper
tactic."

But when Mr. Hansmeier actually filed his objections, the judge's
ruling was scathing.  "The only 'bold and improper' conduct the
Court can identify is Objector's counsel's attempt to extract
$30,000, from class counsel in exchange for Objector not filing
objections," he wrote.  "It should have been evident to any
reasonable attorney that class counsel would not acquiesce given
the tone and nature of Objector's counsel's demand."

He ruled that Mr. Hansmeier's objections were "without merit and
would not succeed even it were allowed to proceed."

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mr. Hansmeier's hometown paper, has
covered Mr. Hansmeier's legal antics.  Confronted by the paper for
a Saturday story, Mr. Hansmeier acknowledged that most of the
clients in his class action cases were friends and family.  This
is not unlike Prenda's copyright lawsuits, which were almost
always filed on behalf of shell companies represented by a handful
of individuals with close links to Prenda.

In addition to his father, Mr. Hansmeier has also objected to two
class actions settlements on behalf of his wife, one involving a
lawsuit against Groupon, the other a lawsuit against Netflix.  The
Star Tribune reported that in October, Mr. Hansmeier filed a class
action lawsuit against "several online travel companies and major
hotel chains on behalf of his friend Allan Mooney, a 34-year-old
personal trainer."  That lawsuit was short-lived; Mr. Hansmeier
dismissed it the following week.

"You generally start with people that are in your, shall we say,
inner circle or whatever," Mr. Hansmeier told the Star Tribune.
"Now, I would hope that as time goes on that I expand the circle,
that I gain some credibility and some experience and a reputation
for successfully prosecuting these style of cases."

Mr. Hansmeier also filed a class action lawsuit against
LivingSocial on behalf of his law clerk, Nathan Wersal.
Evidently, Mr. Wersal is upset that his LivingSocial vouchers
expired before he had a chance to use them.  But LivingSocial's
lawyers have argued the case should be dismissed, arguing that the
original purchase price on the coupons never expired. That case is
ongoing.

In February, Mr. Hansmeier filed another case on behalf of Mooney.
This one alleged that food sold by Frito-Lay and marketed as "all
natural" actually contain genetically modified organisms. The
defendants said that Mr. Hansmeier's lawsuit is a "copycat"
lawsuit similar to 11 other cases that have been filed in the last
18 months.

There's nothing illegal about filing lawsuits on behalf of
friends, family, and business associates.  But repeatedly filing
lawsuits on behalf of a few plaintiffs with personal ties to him
suggests that Mr. Hansmeier may be struggling to sell his legal
services to the general public.  Perhaps his pattern of regularly
changing the name of his law firm -- since 2010 he has been
associated with Steele Hansmeier, Prenda Law, Alpha Law Firm, and
now the Class Action Justice Institute -- has made it difficult to
attract more clients.


* Participants in New Zealand Bank Fee Class Action Indemnified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that the bank lawsuit
of the century is on, and New Zealanders like you are being asked
to sign up to it.

But should you?

Backed by Australian litigation funders, Auckland lawyer Andrew
Hooker hopes to prove in court that the $15 and $20 dishonor fees
charged to bank customers for not having the funds to honor a
payment or check, or for paying their credit card bills late, are
illegal.

It's a big deal, as the dishonor fees earn the big banks tens of
millions of dollars a year.

The action Mr. Hooker is planning is what's called a
"representative" action, where one named plaintiff is used to take
a test case.

It is called representative because that one named plaintiff
represents the thousands of other people who have signed up to the
legal action -- more than 20,000 have registered at
fairplayonfees.co.nz so far.

If the case succeeds, the bank which charged the named plaintiff
the dishonor fees will have to be paid compensation.

And because it is what's called a class action, all those the
named plaintiff represented -- all the other people who have
signed up to the action -- will have to be paid compensation too.

But to make the action financially viable, including to cover
profits hoped for by the litigation funders, enough people need
to register so that a win yields more in compensation than the
$3.5 million estimated cost of taking the case.

If too few sign up the funders can pull out, and it's game over.

So should you sign up?

If you are the kind of person who manages money well, and has
never paid a dishonor fee, then the answer is clearly "Why would
you bother?" as you have nothing to gain.

For those who have racked up a few dishonor fees, signing up
brings the possibility of getting paid some portion of them back.

Just how much of each $15 or $20 dishonor fee that a win would
yield is unknown.

It depends on how many people sign up, and how many dishonor fees
they have paid, and what portion judges decide was illegal.  And
any payment to those signing up will come after the litigation
funders get paid.

If you have paid a couple of dishonor fees, the sum that may one
day, years from now, come to you, is not going to be life-
changing. For those who have paid multiple dishonor fees, signing
up will seem more attractive, and Mr. Hooker says some poorer
people have paid hundreds of dollars annually for years.

But signing up to a legal action of this scale is no small thing,
and registering requires accepting the terms of the litigation
funding and legal services agreements that govern the whole
lawsuit.

Usually people don't sign up to complex legal contracts by
clicking a button online.  Sensibly so.  Usually complex contracts
require lawyers to explain them.

Mr. Hooker says that those signing up are indemnified by the
litigation funders for any and all costs, even if the case fails.

It's a win-win.  If the case succeeds, you get money.  If it
fails, you pay nothing.

The litigation funding document seems to say that.

But people will have to decide for themselves whether they are
convinced that is so, and whether there is any personal risk in
helping ensure the banks have to justify their horrific, poverty-
exacerbating fees in court.


* Settlement Trends Hold Clues to LIBOR Litigation Outcomes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Gittleman, writing for Compliance Complete, reports that
court-approved securities class action settlements reported in
2012 were at a 14-year low and 18 percent fewer than in 2011 but
they cost defendants twice as much as the prior year, a report
released on March 20 said.

The study by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research associated settlement
values with factors including the presence of enforcement actions
related to the lawsuits.  This may hold clues to the outcomes in
recently litigation over alleged manipulation of the global
lending benchmark LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate.

The study explained that the low number of settlements in 2012 --
53, 45 percent less than the 2002-2011 average -- may be due in
part to the relatively low number of filings in 2009 and 2010
because of a drop in IPOs, or initial public offerings.

"Based on the volume of recent securities class action filings,
the unusually low number of settlements reported in 2012 is
unlikely to persist in the future," Cornerstone senior advisor Dr.
Laura E. Simmons said.

The report said the fact that settlements over $100 million -- a
significant portion of which were related to the credit crisis --
made for nearly 75 percent of the $2.9 billion total in 2012 may
have skewed the results over the $1.45 billion in 2011, and that
cases can take several years from filing to resolution.

"Class action securities fraud litigation is, like many other
lines of business, 'hit driven' in that a small number of
settlements often account for a large percentage of the dollar
flow.  That fact of life can make annual settlement data quite
lumpy," said Professor Joseph Grundfest, director of the Stanford
clearinghouse and a former Securities and Exchange Commission
member.

"Settlement trends are often best viewed over time periods longer
than a year, and by carefully analyzing settlement data to reflect
the underlying characteristics of the cases being settled.  So,
just as a lull in last year's data suggested a pickup for this
year in the aggregate statistics, it is always possible that this
year's bump could cause total settlement dollars to tick downward
next year," Mr. Grundfest added.

One third of the settlements in 2012 were with issuers in the
financial services industry, followed by the technology and
pharmaceutical industries, the report noted.

Institutional investors are playing an increasingly active role as
lead plaintiffs, the report said, adding that 49 percent of the
cases that settled in 2012 were led by public pensions

Cases with related SEC actions were associated with significantly
higher settlements that obtain a higher percentage of their
"estimated damages," a measure the report said is the most
important factor in determining settlement amounts. Other
important determinants of settlement amount include:

    * the defendant's assets;
    * whether the defendant was an underwriter in the offering;
    * whether the complaint alleged intentional misconduct by
      the defendant; and
    * whether charges/indictments were brought with similar
      allegations to the class action.

Some of these factors are present in the LIBOR cases, so future
reports may show more and larger settlements if the expected
litigation defenses give way.

Plaintiffs including community banks and local governments have
sued Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co and others for allegedly
manipulating Libor.  Libor, which has been the focus of a global
investigation by regulators, is used to set interest rates on more
than $350 trillion of securities from mortgages to complex
derivatives.

The cases include proposed class action lawsuits alleging
violations of antitrust law and the Commodities Exchange Act,
which regulates the trading of commodity futures in the United
States.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *