CAR_Public/130404.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 66

                             Headlines



APOLLO GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate New Suit
APOLLO GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit Pending
BABYHOME USA: Recalls 1,100 High Chairs Due to Strangulation Risk
BANKRATE INC: Defends "Speight" TCPA Violation Suit in Colorado
BELL SPORTS: Recalls 2,500 BMX Bike Helmets Over Head Injury Risk

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Discovery in IPO-Related Suit Remains Ongoing
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summary Judgment Bids in "Dahl" Suit Pending
BNSF RAILWAY: Appeal From Class Certification Decision Pending
BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Personal Injury Class Suits
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faculty House Waiter Sues Over Stolen Tips

COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Ruling Boon to Employment Lawyers
CORELOGIC INC: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
DEFINITIVE TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 900 SuperCube 2000 Subwoofers
HITACHI-LG DATA: $26MM Accord in ODD Price-Fixing Suit Approved
HUMAN GENOME: Judge Dismisses Benlysta Securities Class Action

ICANDY WORLD: Recalls 830 Cherry Strollers Over Strangling Hazard
KINDER MORGAN: Delaware Court Won't Dismiss "Allen" Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal of "Hite Hedge" Class Suit Now Final
KINDER MORGAN: El Paso Acquisition-Related Suits Now Dismissed
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Copano Merger-Related Suits in Texas & Del.

KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Suit May Proceed Against Hermelin
LIVINGSOCIAL: $4.1MM Accord in Suit Over Expiry Dates Approved
METROLINK: Offers Free Rides Under Class Action Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Stop-and-Frisk Memo Proves NYPD Wrongdoing
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Has Filed Reply in "Toth" Complaint

NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Class Cert. Bid in "Daly" Suit Pending
OLD NATIONAL: Indiana Court Certifies Overdraft Fee Class Action
PROSHARES TRUST: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Snack Items on Likely E. Coli Presence
ROYAL BANK: Faces Investor Class Action Over Rights Issue Losses

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Millennium Actions v. Unit
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Anwar" Suit vs. GlobeOp Ongoing
STANDARD FIRE: Michael Best Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Still Defending Deepwater Horizon-Related Suits
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Securities Suit in New York Stayed Since Feb.

TWL CORPORATION: Fifth Circuit Revives Employees' Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Bid on Guantanamo Bay Case
UNITED STATES: Salinas Airport May Join Class Action v. FAA


                             *********


APOLLO GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate New Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC, is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to consolidate a new lawsuit brought against Trilegiant
Corporation, et al., 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 March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v.
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of
Connecticut on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online
fraud.  The defendants included, among others, Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion
Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC, which
is affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 69% of
Affinion's common stock.  In both cases, plaintiffs allege that
Trilegiant, aided by its business partners, who include e-
merchants and credit card companies, developed a set of business
practices intended to create consumer confusion and ultimately
defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs for
unwanted services.  The Plaintiffs allege that Apollo is a proper
defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to
appoint the majority of Affinion's board.  The complaints assert
claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act;
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional
Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement,
injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  The allegations in Kelm and Miller are
substantially similar to those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp.
(No. 3:10-cv-957), a putative class action filed in the District
of Connecticut in 2010 that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as
defendants.  The court has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and
Schnabel cases under the caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc. and ordered that they proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against Apollo as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012, and
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013.  The
Defendants' replies were due on March 11, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed another putative class
action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12-cv-1721), in
the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC.
On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant, and on February 15, 2013, the Frank
Court extended all defendants' deadlines to respond to the Frank
complaint until the earlier of (i) April 1, 2013 or (ii) a ruling
on the motion to transfer and consolidate.

Apollo believes that plaintiffs' claims against it in these cases
are without merit.  For this reason, and because the claims
against Apollo are in their early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC --
http://www.agm.com/-- is a Delaware limited liability company
based in New York.  Apollo is a global alternative investment
manager.  The Company is a contrarian, value-oriented investors in
private equity, credit and real estate, with significant
distressed investment expertise.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management LLC and other defendants' motions for
summary judgment in the antitrust class action lawsuit in
Massachusetts remain 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 July 16, 2008, Apollo was joined as a defendant in a
pre-existing purported class action pending in Massachusetts
federal court against, among other defendants, numerous private
equity firms.  The lawsuit alleges that beginning in mid-2003,
Apollo and the other private equity firm defendants violated the
U.S. antitrust laws by forming "bidding clubs" or "consortia"
that, among other things, rigged the bidding for control of
various public corporations, restricted the supply of private
equity financing, fixed the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and allocated amongst themselves an
alleged market for private equity services in leveraged buyouts.
The lawsuit seeks class action certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees.

On August 27, 2008, Apollo and its co-defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint and on November 20, 2008, the Court granted
Apollo's motion.  The court also dismissed two other defendants,
Permira and Merrill Lynch.  On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to amend the complaint by adding an additional
eight transactions and adding Apollo as a defendant.  On October
6, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file that amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, filed on October
7, 2010, adds Apollo as a defendant.  Apollo joined in the other
defendants' October 21, 2010 motion to dismiss the third claim for
relief and all claims by the PanAmSat Damages Sub-class in the
fourth amended complaint, which motion was granted on January 13,
2011.

On November 4, 2010, Apollo moved to dismiss, arguing that the
claims against Apollo are time-barred and that the allegations
against Apollo are insufficient to state an antitrust conspiracy
claim.  On February 17, 2011, the court denied Apollo's motion to
dismiss, ruling that Apollo should raise the statute of
limitations issues on summary judgment after discovery is
completed.  Apollo filed its answer to the fourth amended
complaint on March 21, 2011.  On July 11, 2011, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint, adding
ten additional transactions and expanding the scope of the class
seeking relief.  On September 7, 2011, the court denied the motion
for leave to amend without prejudice and gave plaintiffs
permission to take limited discovery on the ten additional
transactions.

By court order, the parties concluded discovery on May 21, 2012.
The plaintiffs then filed a fifth amended complaint on June 14,
2012.  One week later, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
portions of the Fifth Amended Complaint.  On July 18, 2012, the
court granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in
part.  On July 21, 2012, all defendants filed motions for summary
judgment.  While those motions were pending, the New York Times
moved to intervene and unseal the fifth amended complaint.  After
a court order, the defendants submitted a version of the complaint
containing only four redactions.  The court publicly filed this
version of the fifth amended complaint on the case docket on
October 10, 2012.  On December 18 and 19, 2012, the court heard
oral argument on the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Those motions remain pending.

Apollo does not believe that a loss from liability in this case is
either probable or reasonably estimable.  Apollo believes the
plaintiffs' claims lack factual and legal merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  For these reasons, no estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC --
http://www.agm.com/-- is a Delaware limited liability company
based in New York.  Apollo is a global alternative investment
manager.  The Company is a contrarian, value-oriented investors in
private equity, credit and real estate, with significant
distressed investment expertise.


BABYHOME USA: Recalls 1,100 High Chairs Due to Strangulation Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, BabyHome USA, Inc., of Chester, New Jersey; and
manufacturer, BabyHome SA., of Sabadell, Spain, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,100 Baby high chairs.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The front opening between the tray and seat bottom of the high
chair can allow a child's body to pass through and become
entrapped at the neck.  This poses a strangulation hazard to young
children when the child is not harnessed.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes Eat model high chairs in red, black, green,
purple, navy, orange, and brown.  The model number BH2104 is
located on a label on the back of the high chair.  The word
"babyhome" is printed on one leg of the chair and the word "eat"
is printed on the opposite leg of the chair.  The high chairs have
a nylon fabric seat with a plastic tray and metal frame.  The high
chairs measure about 36 inches high and 24 inches wide.  There is
a printed white "babyhome" logo shaped like a backwards letter "h"
on the seatback.  The recalled high chairs have lot numbers:
BH00301/01-2012, BH00303/07-2012, BH00304/09-2012 and BH00304/09-
2012.  The lot numbers are located on a sticker affixed to the
bottom of the footrest.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/cKRC9O

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
juvenile product stores nationwide including USA Baby, Magic Beans
and RC Willey and online at Amazon.com, Babiesrus.com and
Diapers.com from March 2012 through February 2013 for about $150.

Consumers should stop using the high chairs immediately and
contact BabyHome USA to receive a free crotch restraint repair
kit.  BabyHome USA Inc. may be reached at toll-free at (888) 758-
5712 from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday,
or online at http://www.babyhome.es/and click on "Eat Recall" for
more information.


BANKRATE INC: Defends "Speight" TCPA Violation Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit in Colorado
commenced by Stephanie Speight, 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 October 5, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit styled
Stephanie Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted her and the
members of the class she seeks to represent on their cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.  The Company says
it will vigorously defend this lawsuit.  The Company cannot
presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result
from an adverse resolution of this matter.

Based in North Palm Beach, Florida, Bankrate, Inc. is a publisher,
aggregator and distributor of personal finance content on the
Internet.  The Company provides consumers with personal finance
editorial content across multiple vertical categories, including
mortgages, deposits, insurance, credit cards, and other
categories.


BELL SPORTS: Recalls 2,500 BMX Bike Helmets Over Head Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Bell Sports Inc., of Scotts Valley, California, and
manufacturer, MHR, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,500
Bell Full Throttle Bike Helmets.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The buckle on the helmet's safety strap can release in an accident
and allow the helmet to fall off the rider, posing a risk of head
injury.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Bell Full Throttle, full coverage bicycle
motocross (BMX) helmets with a chin bar.  The all-black helmets
have UPC code 035011 937052 and part number 1009159 printed on a
label on the side of the helmet shell.  The Bell logo is affixed
to the front and lower side of the helmet.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/pp7T8g

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at
ToysRUs.com between July 2012 and January 2013 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
contact Bell Sports for instructions on receiving a full refund.
Bell Sports Inc. may be reached toll-free at (866) 892-6059 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bellbikestuff.com/and
click on "Recall Notice" for more information.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Discovery in IPO-Related Suit Remains Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit
relating to The Blackstone Group L.P.' s initial public offering,
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 spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint
(Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose that
(a) one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the
complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor.  The Second Circuit did not consider facts
other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint.  On June 28, 2011,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied.  On August 8,
2011, defendants filed their answer to the complaint and discovery
commenced and is continuing in this action.

Blackstone believes that the lawsuit is totally without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
Delaware limited partnership that was formed on March 12, 2007,
and is headquartered in New York.  The Company is a global
alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory
services.  The Company's alternative asset management businesses
include the management of private equity funds, real estate funds,
funds of hedge funds, credit-focused funds, collateralized loan
obligation and collateralized debt obligation vehicles and
separately managed accounts.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summary Judgment Bids in "Dahl" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).  The lawsuit alleges that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  After the
conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of
public shareholders that tendered their shares in connection with
17 leveraged buyouts.  The court has dismissed claims against
Blackstone with respect to four of these transactions because
Blackstone was released from any and all claims by the same
shareholders in prior litigation.  The Defendants have filed
motions for summary judgment.  The court has not yet established a
schedule for determining whether to certify the shareholder class
proposed by plaintiffs.

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.

Blackstone believes that the lawsuit is totally without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
Delaware limited partnership that was formed on March 12, 2007,
and is headquartered in New York.  The Company is a global
alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory
services.  The Company's alternative asset management businesses
include the management of private equity funds, real estate funds,
funds of hedge funds, credit-focused funds, collateralized loan
obligation and collateralized debt obligation vehicles and
separately managed accounts.


BNSF RAILWAY: Appeal From Class Certification Decision Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company's appeal from a class certification decision
in a consolidated lawsuit 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.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws.  The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages.  These cases were
consolidated and are currently pending in the federal district
court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869).  Consolidated amended class action
complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I
railroads in April 2008.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified
the class sought by the plaintiffs.  As a result, with some
exceptions, rail customers who paid a fuel surcharge on non-
Surface Transportation Board regulated traffic between July 2003
and December 2008, are part of a class that, subject to appeal,
can be tried jointly in a single case.  BNSF Railway and the other
three Class I railroads have appealed the class-certification
decision.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.  The
Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, BNSF Railway Company --
http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as The Burlington Northern
and Santa Fe Railway Company and prior to that, Burlington
Northern Railroad Company, was incorporated in Delaware in 1961.
BNSF Railway is a wholly-owned and the principal operating
subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC.  BNSF Railway
transports a range of products and commodities, including the
transportation of consumer products, coal, industrial products and
agricultural products, derived from manufacturing, agricultural
and natural resource industries.


BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Personal Injury Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against purported
class action lawsuits alleging personal injury claims, 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.

Personal injury claims, including asbestos claims and employee
work-related injuries and third-party injuries (collectively,
other personal injury), are a significant expense for the railroad
industry.  Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are
subject to the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act
(FELA) rather than state workers' compensation laws.  FELA's
system of requiring the finding of fault, coupled with unscheduled
awards and reliance on the jury system, contributed to increased
expenses in past years.  Other proceedings include claims by non-
employees for punitive as well as compensatory damages.  A few
proceedings purport to be class actions.  The variability present
in settling these claims, including non-employee personal injury
and matters in which punitive damages are alleged, could result in
increased expenses in future years.  BNSF Railway has implemented
a number of safety programs designed to reduce the number of
personal injuries as well as the associated claims and personal
injury expense

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, BNSF Railway Company --
http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as The Burlington Northern
and Santa Fe Railway Company and prior to that, Burlington
Northern Railroad Company, was incorporated in Delaware in 1961.
BNSF Railway is a wholly-owned and the principal operating
subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC.  BNSF Railway
transports a range of products and commodities, including the
transportation of consumer products, coal, industrial products and
agricultural products, derived from manufacturing, agricultural
and natural resource industries.


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faculty House Waiter Sues Over Stolen Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Ross, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
waiter of Columbia University's Faculty House has filed a lawsuit
alleging his tips are being stolen by university officials.

Columbia University has cheated its waiters out of tips at a
faculty dining hall on campus, according to a new lawsuit filed on
March 27 in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Osmond Cousins, an employee in Faculty House on Morningside Drive,
claims university officials have regularly scooped up his tips
since he started working there in 2007.

Workers at Columbia University's faculty dining hall have been
trying to obtain a contract from the institution that would
provide a living wage.

He says other workers are in the same boat -- though he is the
only worker to sign onto the class action suit so far.

The lawsuit comes as Faculty House workers have been trying to get
a labor contract from the university.  Cousins recently presented
Columbia President Lee Bollinger with a petition saying, "We, the
little people of your realm, (want) to get back a living wage,
guaranteed health care and our stolen tips."

University spokesman Robert Hornsby declined to comment.


COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Ruling Boon to Employment Lawyers
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that Comcast won a
major victory at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 27 when the court
threw out an antitrust class action that accused the cable
operator of illegally raising prices in the Philadelphia market.

The 5-4 decision by Justice Antonin Scalia rejected a lower
court's certification of a class of all Comcast customers in the
Philadelphia area, because the court relied on an expert who
couldn't explain how to calculate damages based on the economic
theory of the case.

While the decision is specific to the antitrust suit against
Comcast, it signals the court's growing willingness to tighten the
rules for establishing class actions.  The corporate targets of
those lawsuits frequently complain that given the potentially
devastating cost of a courtroom loss, they are forced to settle
once a judge has certified a class.  Under Justice Scalia's
reasoning in the Comcast case, courts will have to take a more
critical look at the evidence showing how consumers were harmed as
a group, and how damages can be awarded, before allowing the case
to proceed.

"Is it a change in the law? Scalia's not that explicit," said
Ankur Kapoor -- akapoor@constantinecannon.com -- a partner with
Constantine Cannon who specializes in antitrust defense.  "It
doesn't overturn the older cases, but his language clearly
indicates yes, this is a change in the law."

Justice Scalia's reasoning drew a strong dissent from the court's
liberal wing, who said the case shouldn't have been taken up in
the first place and the majority rigged the game in favor of
Comcast by changing the question lawyers were required to answer
after their briefs were done.

"The Court reaches out to decide a case hardly fit for our
consideration," said Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen
Breyer, who were joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In the case, Comcast was accused by plaintiff lawyers of
establishing a dominant position in the Philadelphia market and
then gouging customers with a variety of tactics.  The lawyers
advanced four theories, but the court struck down three of them,
leaving only the theory that Comcast's dominance deterred so-
called "overbuilders" who move into established markets to provide
competing cable service.

Comcast argued the court couldn't establish a class of all
Philadelphia customers based on the expert's testimony since
overbuilding only applied to certain parts of the market.  The
expert also compared prices in Philadelphia to other markets to
show they were excessive, but his calculations included the
effects of the three other allegedly anticompetitive practices the
court refused to consider.

The Supreme Court threw out the case, saying Rule 23 governing
class actions requires a case to be capable of delivering
classwide damages.  "We start with an unremarkable premise,"
Justice Scalia wrote, which is that plaintiffs are only entitled
to damages under the theory of the case.  If those damages can't
be calculated, he said, there's no class.

In the Philadelphia market, higher prices could be attributed to
lack of direct broadcast satellite competition in some counties
and Comcast's price advantage in buying programming in others,
Justice Scalia wrote.

"The permutations involving four theories of liability and 2
million subscribers located in 16 counties are nearly endless," he
said.

Justices Ginsberg and Breyer said the majority damaged the
credibility of the court by taking the case and deciding a
question of fact best left to the trial court, however.

"The Court's ruling is good for this day and case only," the said
in dissent.  "In the mine run of cases, it remains the `black
letter rule' " that courts can still certify a class action
whenever common questions predominate, they said, even if the
court must later use separate procedures to determine individual
damages.

Mr. Kapoor of Constantine Cannon said lower courts have already
been whittling away at the looser standards the justices cited in
their dissent.  Going forward, he said, plaintiff lawyers won't
have to prove the case that people were hurt by antitrust
violations, but they do need "a sound methodology that can show
damages on a classwide basis."

The decision also could be a boon to employment lawyers.
Attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw said in their firm's blog that the case
"is incredibly important for any class action lawsuit dependent
upon expert analysis to cross the class certification threshold."
Combined with the court's Wal-Mart vs. Dukes decision in 2011,
plaintiff lawyers will have to spend more on expensive experts to
show how an entire class of consumers or employees were hurt
before judges can reward them with class certification.

"It has brought into perspective the importance of defendants'
efforts to fully engage in the 'battle of the experts,' as success
in the certification arena may very well depend upon it," wrote
Rebecca Bjork and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. of Seyfarth Shaw.

Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that Justice
Scalia says that a lower court shouldn't have accepted an expert's
opinion that Comcast's "clustering" in the Philly cable TV market
added up to $875 million of damage to a class of plaintiffs.

Comcast scored a win at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 27 against
a class-action lawsuit that challenges how it has allegedly
monopolized the Philadelphia cable market.

The high court reviewed a lower judge's decision to certify a
class of plaintiffs who say they were damaged from an activity
that's known in the industry as "clustering."

From 1998 to 2007, Comcast would acquire competitor cable provider
systems in the region in exchange for systems outside the region.
In essence, Comcast made transactions that bolstered its local
market share.  For example, in 2001, Comcast obtained 464,000
subscribers in Philadelphia from Adelphia Communications in
exchange for subscribers in Palm Beach, Fla., and Los Angeles.  By
doing so, Comcast was able to gain an estimated 60 percent of pay-
TV subscribers in Philadelphia.

An expert for the plaintiffs estimated damages from this activity
to be worth more than $875 million, but it's that number that
attracted the rebuke of the Supreme Court's five most conservative
justices in a narrowly divided decision.

In the proposed antitrust class action, the plaintiffs originally
asserted four theories on how Comcast's "clustering" was harmful.

Three of those theories never made it past a federal judge: It was
argued that clustering made it profitable for Comcast to withhold
local sports programming from its competitors, resulted in fewer
"benchmark" pricing comparisons that cable customers could make
when choosing a service and that clustering increased Comcast's
bargaining power relative to content providers.

Only one theory was accepted: Comcast's activities allegedly
discouraged "overbuilders," companies that might wish to build
competing cable networks in an area like Philly where Comcast had
established incumbency.

The problem came because a judge is only allowed to certify a
class when questions of law or fact are common to class members
rather than questions affecting only individual members.

When James McClave, the plaintiff's statistical expert, was tasked
with figuring out the estimated damage attributable to Comcast's
alleged anti-competitive practices, he based his analysis on all
four theories of harm rather than just the "overbuilders" theory
that eventually was accepted.

First, a federal judge gave it a pass; so did the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals.  But the U.S. Supreme Court was more strict.

Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion that concluded the class
action was improperly certified.

"If respondents prevail on their claims, they would be entitled
only to damages resulting from reduced overbuilder competition,
since that is the only theory of antitrust impact accepted for
class-action treatment by the District Court," he wrote.  "It
follows that a model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in
this class action must measure only those damages attributable to
that theory.  If the model does not even attempt to do that, it
cannot possibly establish that damages are susceptible of
measurement across the entire class."

Justice Scalia added, "Calculations need not be exact . . . but at
the class-certification stage (as at trial), any model supporting
a 'plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability
case, particularly with respect to the alleged anticompetitive
effect of the violation.' "

Justice Scalia was joined in the majority by Justices John
Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The minority opinion on behalf of the high court's more liberal
wing was jointly authored by Justice Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, who wrote that the Supreme Court shouldn't have reviewed
the case.

According to their dissent, "In any event, as far as we can tell,
the lower courts were right.  On the basis of the record as we
understand it, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
finding that McClave's model could measure damages suffered by the
class -- even if the damages were limited to those caused by
deterred overbuilding.  That is because respondents alleged that
Comcast's anticompetitive conduct increased Comcast's market share
(and market power) by deterring potential entrants, in particular,
overbuilders, from entering the Philadelphia area market."


CORELOGIC INC: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Corelogic issues inaccurate
credit reports and makes it "burdensome and costly" for the
wronged subjects to get copies of them, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


DEFINITIVE TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 900 SuperCube 2000 Subwoofers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
DEI Sales Inc., dba Definitive Technology, of Vista, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 900 SuperCube 2000 Powered
Subwoofers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

An internal failure with the subwoofer's level input jack (RCA
jack) results in a shock hazard to consumers.  The firm has
received two reports of consumers who were shocked while handling
the unit.

This recall involves the SuperCube 2000 powered subwoofers with
"0912HB" as part of a serial number printed on the back of the
unit.  The subwoofer measures 11 inches tall by 11 inches wide by
11 inches deep and has a black cloth grille wrapping all four
sides with a glossy black top cap.  "Definitive" is printed on the
bottom front of the speaker.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://is.gd/wXRnCv

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
electronics stores nationwide and online at BestBuy.com and
Amazon.com between November 2012 and January 2013 for about $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the subwoofer in the
theater system and contact Definitive Technology for a
replacement.  Definitive Technology may be reached at (800) 228-
7148 from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or online at http://www.definitivetechnology.com/and
click on "view the recall notice on select SuperCube 2000 models"
for more information.


HITACHI-LG DATA: $26MM Accord in ODD Price-Fixing Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hitachi-LG Data Storage can
pay $26 million to settle a class action over an optical disk
drive price-fixing conspiracy, a federal judge ruled.


HUMAN GENOME: Judge Dismisses Benlysta Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a Maryland federal
judge on March 26 dismissed a consolidated securities class action
accusing Human Genome Sciences Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline PLC of
concealing suicide risks associated with lupus drug Benlysta,
saying the plaintiffs had failed to show the companies
purposefully hid reported suicides from investors.

U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus said the facts of the case more
plausibly showed that the companies had either "acted innocently
or, at most, negligently" in not disclosing that that three
patients had killed themselves while taking Benlysta during
clinical trials.


ICANDY WORLD: Recalls 830 Cherry Strollers Over Strangling Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, iCandy America Inc., of Brooklyn, New York; and
manufacturer, iCandy World Ltd, of Bedfordshire, United Kingdom,
announced a voluntary recall of about 830 Cherry model strollers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The opening between the bumper bar and seat bottom of the stroller
can allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at
the neck, posing a strangulation hazard to young children when a
child is not harnessed.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes the iCandy Cherry stroller only in the colors
Fudge (light-medium brown) and Liquorice (red and black).  The
iCandy Cherry stroller system has a telescopic folding frame where
a seat, bassinet or infant carrier car seat can be placed.  The
seat unit features three recline positions, adjustable footrest,
5-point safety harness, removable canopy and removable bumper bar.
There is a printed white cherry logo on the rear of the seat unit.
A label can be found under the basket fabric on the frame tubing
that supports the lower basket on the following recalled models:

   Batch No.     Cherry Stroller Color   Serial Number
   ---------     ---------------------   -------------
   U10001169     FUDGE (IW119)           1-500
   U10002170     LIQUORICE (IW124)       501-1000
   U10014182     LIQUORICE (IW124)       1001-1500
   U10013181     FUDGE (IW119)           1501-2000

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/bpdS42

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy
Buy Baby and other juvenile product stores nationwide and online
at www.buybuybaby.com and other online retailers from October 2009
through December 2012 for about $400.

Consumers should immediately remove the bumper bar from the
strollers and contact iCandy America Inc. to receive a free
replacement bumper bar.  Consumers can continue to use the
strollers while awaiting the replacement bumper bar.  Contact
iCandy America toll-free at (877) 484-4179 any time
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting, e-mail info@icandyamerica.com or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.icandyworld.com/and click
"United States of America" and "Important Safety Information --
iCandy Cherry."


KINDER MORGAN: Delaware Court Won't Dismiss "Allen" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit styled
Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et al., was denied,
according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI) conducts most of its business through
its master limited partnerships -- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,
L.P. (KMP) and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB).  In May
2012, a unitholder of EPB filed a purported class action in
Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both derivative and non
derivative claims, against EPB, and EPB's general partner and its
board.  EPB was named in the lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant"
and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant."  The complaint alleges a
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in connection
with the sale to EPB of a 25% ownership interest in Southern
Natural Gas Company L.L.C. (SNG).  The Defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied.

The Defendants continue to believe that this lawsuit is without
merit, and intend to defend against it vigorously.

Houston, Texas-based Kinder Morgan, Inc., --
http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- is the largest midstream and the
third largest energy company in North America with a combined
enterprise value of approximately $100 billion.  The Company owns
an interest in or operate approximately 75,000 miles of pipelines
and 180 terminals.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, CO2 and other products, and its terminals store
petroleum products and chemicals and handle such products as
ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel.


KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal of "Hite Hedge" Class Suit Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled Hite Hedge LP, et
al. v. El Paso Corporation, et al., is now final, Kinder Morgan,
Inc. disclosed in its March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Effective on May 25, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition
of all of the outstanding shares of El Paso Corporation (EP).  EP
owns one of North America's largest interstate natural gas
pipeline systems and an emerging midstream business.  EP also owns
a 41% limited partner interest and the 2% general partner interest
in El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB) as well as certain
natural gas pipeline assets.

In December 2011, unitholders of EPB filed a purported class
action complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against EP and its
board members, asserting that the defendants breached their
purported fiduciary duties to EPB by entering into the sale
agreement with KMI.  EPB and EPB's general partner were named in
the lawsuit as "Nominal Defendants."  The complaint alleges that
the agreement with KMI will result in fewer drop-down transactions
into EPB and has resulted in a reduction of the price of EPB
common units.  In February 2012, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding a derivative claim, and the defendants responded with a
second motion to dismiss in April 2012.  The Defendants' motion to
dismiss was granted and the dismissal is now a final judgment.

Houston, Texas-based Kinder Morgan, Inc., --
http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- is the largest midstream and the
third largest energy company in North America with a combined
enterprise value of approximately $100 billion.  The Company owns
an interest in or operate approximately 75,000 miles of pipelines
and 180 terminals.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, CO2 and other products, and its terminals store
petroleum products and chemicals and handle such products as
ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel.


KINDER MORGAN: El Paso Acquisition-Related Suits Now Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed 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 class action lawsuits arising
from its acquisition of El Paso Corporation have been dismissed.

Effective on May 25, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition
of all of the outstanding shares of El Paso Corporation (EP).  EP
owns one of North America's largest interstate natural gas
pipeline systems and an emerging midstream business.  EP also owns
a 41% limited partner interest and the 2% general partner interest
in El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB) as well as certain
natural gas pipeline assets.

On October 16, 2011, the Company and EP announced a definitive
agreement whereby KMI would acquire all of the outstanding shares
of EP.  Beginning on October 17, 2011, the day after the agreement
was announced, and in the days following, several putative class
action lawsuits were filed in Harris County (Houston), Texas, and
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Board of Directors of EP alleging that the director-defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to EP shareholders in connection
with their negotiation of and entry into the merger agreement.
The lawsuits also assert that EP and KMI "aided and abetted" the
alleged breaches by the EP directors.  The actions sought, among
other things, to enjoin the proposed merger, disgorgement of any
improper profits received by the defendants, and attorneys' fees.

On February 9, 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court heard oral
argument on a motion by plaintiffs to enjoin the EP shareholder
vote on the proposed merger.  In a memorandum opinion, dated
February 29, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote.

On March 9, 2012, EP held its special meeting of its stockholders,
and the merger was approved.  The merger thereafter closed on May
24, 2012, and became effective on May 25, 2012.

Beginning in June 2012, the parties engaged in settlement
discussions with the assistance of a mediator.  On July 18, 2012,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve, settle
and release all claims asserted in the consolidated putative class
actions for $110 million, subject to the execution of a customary
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, and
subject also to notice to EP shareholders and approval by the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

On December 3, 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a Final
Order and Judgment which approved the settlement and dismissed the
claims against all defendants with prejudice.  Thereafter, the
Texas cases were dismissed with prejudice on December 6, 2012.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of $71 million, net of insurance proceeds, which was the
amount that the Company paid in connection with this settlement.

Houston, Texas-based Kinder Morgan, Inc., --
http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- is the largest midstream and the
third largest energy company in North America with a combined
enterprise value of approximately $100 billion.  The Company owns
an interest in or operate approximately 75,000 miles of pipelines
and 180 terminals.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, CO2 and other products, and its terminals store
petroleum products and chemicals and handle such products as
ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel.


KINDER MORGAN: Faces Copano Merger-Related Suits in Texas & Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. is facing merger-related class action lawsuits
in Texas and 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.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI) conducts most of its business through
its master limited partnerships -- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,
L.P. (KMP) and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB).

On January 29, 2013, KMP and Copano Energy, L.L.C. (Copano)
announced a definitive agreement whereby KMP has agreed to acquire
all of Copano's outstanding units, including convertible preferred
units, for a total purchase price of approximately $5 billion,
including the assumption of debt. The transaction, which has been
approved by the board of directors of Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.,
KMP's general partner, and the board of directors of Copano, will
be a 100% unit for unit transaction with an exchange ratio of
0.4563 KMP common units per each Copano common unit.  TPG Advisors
VI, Inc., Copano's largest unitholder, has agreed to support the
transaction, and the Company expects the transaction to close in
the third quarter of 2013.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with KMP's proposed merger with Copano.  Two lawsuits have been
filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas: (i) Schultes
v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 06966), filed on
February 5, 2013; and (ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al.
(Case No. 07076), filed on February 5, 2013.  Three lawsuits have
also been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:
Berlin v. Copano Energy L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 8284-VCN), filed
February 6, 2013; Welzenbach v. William L. Thacker, et al. (Case
No. 8317-VCN), filed on February 14, 2013; and Hudson v. Copano
Energy L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 8337-VCN), filed February 19,
2013.

Each of the actions names Copano, its board of directors, Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and Merger
Sub as defendants.  All three lawsuits are purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class seeking to enjoin the merger and
alleging, among other things, that the members of Copano's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell
Copano for inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an
inadequate and unfair process, and that Copano, Kinder Morgan,
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
alleged breaches.

Kinder Morgan has not yet responded to any of the complaints, but
intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Houston, Texas-based Kinder Morgan, Inc., --
http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- is the largest midstream and the
third largest energy company in North America with a combined
enterprise value of approximately $100 billion.  The Company owns
an interest in or operate approximately 75,000 miles of pipelines
and 180 terminals.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, CO2 and other products, and its terminals store
petroleum products and chemicals and handle such products as
ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel.


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Suit May Proceed Against Hermelin
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, PUBLIC PENSION FUND GROUP, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No.
4:08-CV-1859 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Carol E. Jackson
granted the request of Public Pension Fund Groups to proceed
against Marc Hermelin, but not against KV.

On Dec. 2, 2008, Joseph Mas filed a complaint against KV and its
executive officers alleging that they had issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding KV's compliance with federal
regulations as well as KV's current and future financial
prospects.  The lawsuit was brought as a class action on behalf of
purchasers of KV securities.  Subsequently, two additional class
action lawsuits were filed against KV alleging similar violations.

In an order dated April 15, 2009, the Court consolidated the three
securities class actions and appointed Public Pension as lead
plaintiff.  On May 22, 2009, Public Pension filed a consolidated
amended complaint against defendants KV, Mr. Hermelin, and two
other individuals, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a)-(c) promulgated
thereunder.  The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss
which were granted by the Court.

On March 18, 2010, Public Pension filed a motion for relief from
the order of dismissal and for leave to amend the complaint.
Public Pension also filed a notice of appeal of the order of
dismissal.  On Oct. 20, 2010, Public Pension's motion for relief
was denied and the notice of appeal was docketed in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  On June 4, 2012, the Court of
Appeals issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part,
and the case was remanded to the E.D. Mo. District Court.

On Aug. 4, 2012, KV filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition.  On Aug. 10, 2012, the E.D. Mo. District Court, sua
sponte, entered an Order staying all proceedings in the class
action pending completion of the bankruptcy case. The phrase "all
proceedings" meant that all actions against KV and Hermelin were
temporarily stayed.

On Nov. 28, 2012, Public Pension filed a motion with the
Bankruptcy Court seeking relief from the stay order as it related
to KV so that Public Pension could file an amended complaint.
Public Pension subsequently withdrew this motion.  On Dec. 6,
2012, Public Pension filed the motion to modify the stay as it
relates to Mr. Hermelin.

Public Pension does not dispute the Court's authority to stay the
proceedings as to the KV.  Public Pension argues, however, that
the stay should not have extended to Mr. Hermelin, a nondebtor
defendant.

The E.D. Mo. Court agrees that its Aug. 10, 2012 order staying the
proceedings against Mr. Hermelin was inappropriate.

A copy of the Court's March 28, 2013 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/BfMdSgfrom Leagle.com.

                     About K-V Pharmaceutical

K-V Pharmaceutical Company (NYSE: KVa/KVb) --
http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/-- is a fully integrated
specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures,
markets, and acquires technology-distinguished branded and
generic/non-branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
Company markets its technology distinguished products through
ETHEX Corporation, a subsidiary that competes with branded
products, and Ther-Rx Corporation, the company's branded drug
subsidiary.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain domestic subsidiaries on
Aug. 4, 2012, filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 12-13346, under K-V Discovery Solutions
Inc.) to restructure their financial obligations.

K-V employed Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP as bankruptcy counsel,
Williams & Connolly LLP as special litigation counsel, and SNR
Denton as special litigation counsel.  In addition, K-V tapped
Jefferies & Co., Inc., as financial advisor and investment banker.
Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC is the claims and notice agent.

The U.S. Trustee appointed five members to serve in the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  Kristopher M. Hansen, Esq.,
Erez E. Gilad, Esq., and Matthew G. Garofalo, Esq., at Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, represent the Creditors Committee.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP's Robert J. Lemons, Esq., and Lori R.
Fife, Esq., represent an Ad Hoc Senior Noteholders Group.


LIVINGSOCIAL: $4.1MM Accord in Suit Over Expiry Dates Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that
LivingSocial can pay $4.1 million to settle a class action over
allegedly unfair expiration dates and other terms of the company's
daily online deals, a federal judge ruled.

After giving the settlement a provisional OK in October 2012, U.S.
District Judge Ellen Huvelle granted has final approval late in
March 2013.

The settlement marks the resolution of six consolidated lawsuits,
led by eight plaintiffs representing 10.9 million LivingSocial
customers who purchased the company's discounts for goods and
services provided by local merchants.  They said LivingSocial's
deals had expiration dates that violated the Credit Card
Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, the D.C.
Consumer Protection Act, and state laws regarding gift
certificates.

The CARD Act forbids gift certificates with expiration dates of
less than five years.  LivingSocial customers also complained that
they could not exchange unused portions of the deals for cash, and
that the vouchers had to be redeemed all at once.

A settlement administrator found that 26,830 customers filed valid
claims.

Judge Huvelle ruled that, consistent with federal law, "the
settlement agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and the
result of arms-length negotiations."

"The settlement provides for full economic recovery by claimants,
as well as injunctive relief that may provide benefits to future
LivingSocial customers," she added.

Huvelle also awarded $1.35 million in attorneys' fees, incentive
awards of $2,500 for each of three named plaintiffs who were
deposed, and incentive awards of $500 for the remaining five named
plaintiffs.

The ruling notes that the two-year case involved 12 law firms,
including Shaw Wanta and Melissa Wolchansky at Halunen &
Associates; Michael McShane of Audet & Partners; and attorneys
Charles LaDuca, Thomas Merrick, Clayton Halunen and Charles
Schaffer.


METROLINK: Offers Free Rides Under Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Leiser, writing for Post-Dispatch, reports that MetroLink has
agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the transit
agency violated federal law when its ticket vending machines
printed receipts that showed the last four digits of the account
numbers plus the card expiration dates.

The lawsuit alleged that receipts printed between Jan. 21, 2010,
and Aug. 16, 2011, violated a credit card privacy law.  The
federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act was passed in
2003 to help prevent identity theft.

Richard Doherty, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer, said he was pleased
with the preliminary settlement and the fact that no more
MetroLink ticket receipts will be printed in that manner.

"Right after we filed suit, the practice stopped," Doherty said.
"That is your primary goal when you get into something like this."

Under the preliminary settlement before U.S. District Court Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig, people who used credit or0 debit cards to buy
tickets during the 20-month period can make claims by July 3 for
free ride passes or tickets.

Passengers who still have the credit card receipt would be
entitled to one of the following: a $30 cash payment, a monthly
pass valued at $72, or two MetroLink 10-ride passes with a face
value of $60.  For those who furnish a statement showing they used
a credit or debit card during that period, Metro would provide
three round-trip tickets, worth $13.50 total.

If passengers don't have proof of payment but bought a ticket or
pass using a credit or debit card, they would be asked to sign a
form -- under penalty of perjury -- saying they bought the ticket.
Those customers will receive a free one-ride ticket valued at
$2.25.

Metro denied any wrongdoing in the case.  The transit agency
adjusted its ticket vending machines the day after learning of the
problem and the machines no longer print receipts with the
prohibited information.  There is no way to predict how many
people might participate or what it might cost Metro.

"We expect our exposure to be minimal," Metro President and CEO
John Nations said.  He said, "It's an unfortunate situation,"
adding, "We were glad to get it corrected."

Mr. Nations stressed that the agency takes these matters "very
seriously" and works hard to comply "in all areas of our
operation."

So far, only a handful of passengers have sought claims.  Under
terms of the settlement, Metro was required to post signs on
MetroLink ticket machines and run an advertisement in the Post-
Dispatch.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act gave merchants until
December 2006 to comply with limits on the amount of debit or
credit card information printed on receipts.  The act allows
businesses to print up to the last five digits of a credit card or
its expiration date but not both.

Identity thieves have been able to use information they find on
lost, stolen or discarded receipts to "engage in transactions,"
according to the lawsuit.  The expiration date allows thieves to
misuse the card number.  No passengers are known to have suffered
identity theft as a result of the MetroLink ticket receipts,
according to the settlement and a lawyer in the case.

MetroLink riders Nancy Albright and Sarah Rodhouse filed the
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other class members in August
2011.  Ms. Albright bought three MetroLink tickets using a credit
card in July 2011.  Ms. Rodhouse used a debit card to buy a
MetroLink ticket in August 2011.

Both noticed that their receipts showed the last four digits of
their card numbers and the expiration dates, the lawsuit said.
Under the settlement, each would receive $2,500 as class
representatives.

The settlement has received preliminary approval. A final hearing
on the case is scheduled in Judge Fleissig's courtroom July 29.
The court will decide whether the settlement is "fair, reasonable
and adequate" before deciding whether to approve it.


NEW YORK, NY: Stop-and-Frisk Memo Proves NYPD Wrongdoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Golding and Kirstan Conley, writing for New York Post,
report that plaintiffs' lawyers in the federal "stop-and-frisk"
trial claimed on March 27 that a new NYPD directive regarding the
controversial crime-fighting program is a "startling admission" of
alleged wrongdoing.

The March 5 memo from Chief of Patrol James Hall ordered cops to
explicitly detail all stops in their memo books and file
photocopies along with their mandatory stop-and-frisk reports.

City lawyers turned over the memo late on March 27.  Lawyers in
the class-action suit against the city tried to use the document
to question cops involved in the case, but were blocked by
Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin on grounds that the
document went to the NYPD's commanding officers, not the rank-and-
file.

Outside court, plaintiffs' lawyers described Hall's order as an
obvious ploy to avoid court-ordered supervision of the NYPD.  City
lawyers downplayed the memo's importance, insisting it was merely
reinforcing existing police policies.


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Has Filed Reply in "Toth" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, 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 filed on January 3, 2013,
its reply in support of its preliminary objections to the
complaint filed against its subsidiary.

On May 7, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in an alleged
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, captioned as Toth v. Northwest
Savings Bank, No. GD-12-8014.  The Complaint challenges the manner
in which debit card transaction overdraft fees were charged and
the policies related to the posting order of debit card
transactions.  The Complaint asserts various claims under state
law and seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.  The
Company filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the case
on June 29, 2012.  In response, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on September 6, 2012.  On November 5, 2012, the Company
filed preliminary objections to the Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff
filed her opposition to the Company's preliminary objections on
December 6, 2012, and the Company filed the Company's reply in
support of the preliminary objections on January 3, 2013.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
plaintiff's claims and to oppose any effort to certify a class in
this case.  At this stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible
to estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not possible
to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management after consultation with
legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate
liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, or
cash flows; although, at the present time, the Company is not in a
position to determine whether such proceeding will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in any
future quarterly reporting period.

Warren, Pennsylvania-based Northwest Bancshares, Inc. --
http://www.northwestsavingsbank.com/-- was incorporated in
September 2009 to be the successor corporation to Northwest
Bancorp, Inc., the former stock holding company for Northwest
Savings Bank.  The Bank is a Pennsylvania-chartered stock savings
and is a community-oriented financial institution offering
personal and business banking solutions, investment management and
trust services and insurance products.


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Class Cert. Bid in "Daly" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and the
plaintiff's motion for class certification remain pending in the
class action lawsuit styled Daly v. Northwest Savings Bank,
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 11, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in an
alleged class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned as Daly
v. Northwest Savings Bank, No. 2:11-cv-00911-DSC.  The Complaint
challenges the credit disclosures provided to residential mortgage
loan applicants and the policies related to the residential
mortgage loan application process and the prequalification request
process.  The Complaint asserts statutory claims under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681g(g), and seeks statutory
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company has filed a motion for
summary judgment and intends to continue to vigorously defend
against the plaintiff's claims.  The plaintiff has filed a motion
for class certification and the Company subsequently filed an
opposition.  Both motions are presently pending before the Court.

At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company says it is not yet
possible to estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not
possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability
with respect to this litigation, management, after consultation
with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the
aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, or cash flows; although, at the present time, the
Company is not in a position to determine whether such proceeding
will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations
in any future quarterly reporting period.

Warren, Pennsylvania-based Northwest Bancshares, Inc. --
http://www.northwestsavingsbank.com/-- was incorporated in
September 2009 to be the successor corporation to Northwest
Bancorp, Inc., the former stock holding company for Northwest
Savings Bank.  The Bank is a Pennsylvania-chartered stock savings
and is a community-oriented financial institution offering
personal and business banking solutions, investment management and
trust services and insurance products.


OLD NATIONAL: Indiana Court Certifies Overdraft Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sweetnam LLC on March 28 disclosed that an Indiana court has
certified a class of Old National Bank customers who were charged
overdraft fees when they used their debit cards to make purchases
or ATM withdrawals before August 15, 2010.  The complaint alleges
the bank reordered its customers' debit card transactions to
increase the bank's revenue from such fees.  "We believe that this
practice is deceptive, grossly unfair to consumers and violates
the trust they place in their bank," said William M. Sweetnam --
wms@sweetnamllc.com -- managing partner of Sweetnam LLC in Lake
Forest, Illinois, who represents the plaintiffs and the certified
class.  The Old National Bank plaintiffs and the class allege that
they were charged multiple $35 overdraft fees on everyday debit
card purchases as a result of the bank's practice of posting such
transactions in order of high to low and that the use of a
courtesy overdraft line of credit exacerbated the problem.

Other banks facing similar litigation have recently entered into
settlements with their customers and agreed to refund hundreds of
millions of dollars in overdraft fees.  Some of these banks have
also agreed to discontinue or modify the posting practices alleged
in the complaint against Old National Bank.  The case, Kelly v.
Old National Bank, No. 82C01-1012-CT-627 (Cir. Ct Vanderburgh Cty,
Ind.), is scheduled for trial in October.

Old National Bank, headquartered Evansville, Indiana, is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Old National Bancorp, the largest financial
holding company in that state and one of the 100 largest in the
United States.

                       About Sweetnam LLC:

Established in 2008, Sweetnam LLC -- http://www.sweetnamllc.com--
was formed to represent victims of fraud at the hands of
corporations, financial institutions and insurance companies.
Sweetnam LLC has extensive experience prosecuting class actions in
state and federal courts across the country involving violations
of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes, breach
of warranty and violations of federal securities laws, shareholder
derivative suits and appeals.  Sweetnam LLC has acted as lead
counsel, co-lead counsel and has been a member of the executive
and steering committees in consumer, antitrust and other class
action, complex and multidistrict litigation matters.

Since its founding, Sweetnam LLC has expanded its practice to
include representation of individuals and domestic and
international business entities, ranging in size from fewer than
10 employees to more than 500 employees, in both civil litigation
and appeals.


PROSHARES TRUST: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the consolidated securities
litigation against ProShares Trust II 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.

ProShares Trust II (the Trust) and certain principals of ProShare
Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") have been named as
defendants (along with several other parties) in a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, styled In re ProShares Trust
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-cv-6935.  The complaint, as
amended, alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by including untrue statements of
material fact and omitting material facts in the Registration
Statement for one or more ProShares ETFs and allegedly failing to
adequately disclose the Funds' investment objectives and risks.
The six Funds of the Trust named in the complaint were ProShares
Ultra Silver, ProShares UltraShort Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold,
ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil, ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS
Crude Oil and ProShares UltraShort Silver.  On September 10, 2012,
the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the
class action lawsuit in its entirety.  On December 17, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal brief to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has
been recorded in the balance sheet and the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

ProShares Trust II, formerly known as the Commodities and
Currencies Trust -- http://www.ProShares.com/-- is a Delaware
statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007, and currently organized
into separate series.  As of December 31, 2012, 21 series of the
Trust have commenced investment operations.


RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Snack Items on Likely E. Coli Presence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Products Corporation, a Buffalo, New York firm, is recalling
approximately 196,222 pounds of frozen chicken quesadilla and
various other heat treated, not fully cooked frozen mini meals and
snack items because they may be contaminated with E. coli O121,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to FSIS recall:

   * 7.2-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mini pizza slices with cheese
     pepperoni and sauce in pizza dough, UPC code 041322376909
     with a best by date of May 15 or May 16, 2014.

   * 22-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mini pizza slices with cheese
     pepperoni and sauce in pizza dough, UPC code 041322356437
     with a best by date of May 15 or May 16, 2014.

   * 18-oz. bags of Farm Rich mini quesadillas with cheese,
     grilled white meat chicken in a crispy crust, UPC code
     041322356352 with a best by date of May 14, 2014.

   * 21-oz. bags of Farm Rich philly cheese steaks with cheese,
     beef & onions in a crispy crust, UPC code 041322356345 with
     a best by date of May 13, 2014.

Each product package above contains the establishment number "EST.
27232" or "P-27233" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

In addition, the following products, which fall under FDA
jurisdiction, are also being recalled.  FSIS is issuing this news
release to make the public aware that these products are also
considered potentially adulterated and should be properly
discarded or destroyed.

   * 22-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 041322374431 with a best by date of
     May 19, 2014.

   * 7-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 041322376916 with a best by date of
     May 19, 2014.

   * 22-oz. bags of Market Day Mozzarella Bites, UPC code
     041322804358 with a best by date of May 12, 2014.

The products subject to recall were produced between November 12,
2012, and November 19, 2012, then distributed for retail sale
nationwide.  FSIS and the establishment are concerned that some
product may be present in household freezers.

FSIS was notified of a multistate investigation of E. coli O121
illnesses on March 19, 2013.  Food samples were collected from an
ill individual in New York as part of this investigation, and
tested by the New York State Department of Health Wadsworth
Laboratory.  At present, the cluster includes 24 cases in 15
states.  A sample of a Farm Rich frozen chicken mini quesadilla
product from a New York case tested positive for the outbreak
strain of E. coli O121.  Eight cases in Michigan, Mississippi, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia report consuming
Farm Rich products.  FSIS is continuing to work with federal and
state public health partners on this investigation, including the
New York State Department of Health, New York State Department of
Agriculture & Markets, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:
http://is.gd/Mxp5ng

Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (STEC), such as STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121
or O145 because it is harder to identify.  Infection with E. coli
O121 can result in dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal
cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after exposure to the
organism.  While most people recover within a week, some develop a
type of kidney failure called HUS, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.
This condition can occur among persons of any age but is most
common in children under 5-years old and older adults.  Symptoms
of HUS may include fever, abdominal pain, pale skin tone, fatigue,
small, unexplained bruises or bleeding from the nose and mouth,
decreased urination, and swelling.  Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact the
Company's consumer line at (888) 220-5955 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday or visit the
Company Web site at http://www.farmrich.com/. Media with
questions regarding the recall should contact the Company's vice
president of communications, Dwight Gram, at (716) 878-8749.

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
frozen chicken quesadilla and various other heat treated, not
fully cooked frozen mini meals and snack items products that have
been recalled by Rich Products Corporation.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/6ZjvH5,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      Location
    -------------      --------
    Alco               Nationwide
    Apple Market       Stores in KS, MO, and NE
    Coborn's           Stores in MN
    Country Mart       Stores in KS, and MO
    Dahl's             Stores in IA
    Harveys            Stores in FL, GA and SC
    Meijer             Stores in IL, IN, KY, MI and OH
    Price Chopper      Stores in KS, and MO
    Thriftway          Stores in KS, MO, and NE
    Walmart            Nationwide
    Winn-Dixie         Stores in South Florida
    Kroger             Stores in AL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MO, NC,
                       OH, SC, TN, VA, and WV

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Sweetbay                    Cape Coral, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Largo, Florida
    Sweetbay                    New Port Richey, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Odessa, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Plant City, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Seffner, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Tampa, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Temple Terrace, Florida
    Woodman's Food Market       Aurora, Illinois
    Woodman's Food Market       Carpentersville, Illinois
    Woodman's Food Market       Rockford, Illinois
    Food Pride                  Audubon, Iowa
    Bender's Foods              Bellevue, Iowa
    Keith's Foods               Bloomfield, Iowa
    Tom's Market & Meats        Burlington, Iowa
    Supervalu                   Colfax, Iowa
    Super Saver                 Council Bluffs, Iowa
    Bender's Foods              Denver, Iowa
    Save A Lot                  Des Moines, Iowa
    Hometown Market             Earlham, Iowa
    North Scott Foods           Eldridge, Iowa
    Bill's Family Foods         Forest City, Iowa
    Bill's Family Foods         Garner, Iowa
    Thriftway                   Glenwood, Iowa
    Bender's Foods              Guttenberg, Iowa
    Super Foods                 Logan, Iowa
    Foodland                    Missouri Valley, Iowa
    Gary's Foods                Mount Vernon, Iowa
    Pickle Barrel Market        Treynor, Iowa
    Williamsburg Foods          Williamsburg, Iowa
    Foodland                    Woodbine, Iowa
    Zey's Market                Abilene, Kansas
    Shurfine Foods              Atchison, Kansas
    Food Mart                   Belleville, Kansas
    Hoovers Stores              Burlington, Kansas
    Mize's Food Store           Clearwater, Kansas
    Hen House                   Fairway, Kansas
    Iga                         Fort Scott, Kansas
    Hometown Market             Hillsboro, Kansas
    Charles Ball Market         241 S 18th St., Kansas City, KS
    Charles Ball Market         4601 Parallel, Kansas City, KS
    Happy Foods                 Leavenworth Rd., Kansas City, KS
    Happy Foods                 6700 Kaw Drive, Kansas City, KS
    Hen House                   Kansas City, Kansas
    Sun Fresh                   Kansas City, Kansas
    Hillcrest Foods             Lawrence, Kansas
    Hen House                   Leawood, Kansas
    Hen House                   Lenexa, Kansas
    Foodline                    Lyons, Kansas
    Hen House                   Merriam, Kansas
    Food Fair                   Mound City, Kansas
    Hen House                   Olathe, Kansas
    Hen House                   College Blvd., Overland Park, KS
    Hen House                   West 135th, Overland Park, KS
    Hen House                   W 83rd St., Prairie Village, KS
    Hen House                   Mission Rd., Prairie Village, KS
    Klema Market                Russell, Kansas
    Iga                         Topeka, Kansas
    Tilton's Market             Topeka, Kansas
    Leeker's Family Foods       Valley Center, Kansas
    Country Market              Westmoreland, Kansas
    Checkers                    Wichita, Kansas
    Farmer's Market             Wichita, Kansas
    Leeker's Family Foods       Wichita, Kansas
    Cash Saver                  Winfield, Kansas
    Family Fare                 Albion, Michigan
    Village Market Food Ctr.    Allegan, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Allendale, Michigan
    Neiman's Family Market      Alpena, Michigan
    Mcdonald's Food & Fam. Ctr. Bad Axe, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Battle Creek, Michigan
    Leppink's Food Center       Belding, Michigan
    Harding's Market            Bridgman, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Brighton, Michigan
    Value Center Marketplace    Clinton Township, Michigan
    Greenfield Super Market     Detroit, Michigan
    King Cole Foods             Detroit, Michigan
    Riverside Market            Durand, Michigan
    Heartland Marketplace       Farmington, Michigan
    Carrow's Super Market       Farwell, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                18005 Silver Pkwy., Fenton, MI
    VG's Grocery                1390 N Leroy, Fenton, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Flint, Michigan
    Shop - N - Save Food Center Fremont, Michigan
    D&W Fresh Market            Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Neiman's Family Market      Hamilton, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Harrison, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Hastings, Michigan
    Glory Supermarket           Highland Park, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Holland, Michigan
    Leppink's Food Center       Howard City, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Howell, Michigan
    Harding's Market            2626 E Main St., Kalamazoo, MI
    Harding's Market            1000 E Cork St., Kalamazoo, MI
    Harding's Market            412 Howard St., Kalamazoo, MI
    Town and Country Market     Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Hollywood Super Market      Madison Heights, Michigan
    Super One                   Marquette, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Marshall, Michigan
    Wingert's Fd & Variety Ctr. Mayville, Michigan
    Glen's                      Mio, Michigan
    Riverside Market            Montrose, Michigan
    Super One                   Negaunee, Michigan
    Martin's Super Markets      Niles, Michigan
    Bryan's Market              North Branch, Michigan
    Harding's Market            Oshtemo, Michigan
    Oleson's Foods              Petoskey, Michigan
    Harding's Market            Plainwell, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Pontiac, Michigan
    Hollywood Super Market      Rochester Hills, Michigan
    Shop-Rite                   Vassar, Michigan
    Value Fresh Marketplace     Warren, Michigan
    Heartland Marketplace       Westland, Michigan
    Vinckier Foods              Yale, Michigan
    County Market               Alexandria, Minnesota
    Food Fair                   Alexandria, Minnesota
    County Market               Andover, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Andover, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Apple Valley, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Apple Valley, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Austin, Minnesota
    Super One                   Baxter, Minnesota
    Lueken's Village Foods      Paul Bunyan Dr. NW, Bemidji, MN
    Lueken's Village Foods      Washington Ave. S., Bemidji, MN
    Marketplace Foods           Bemidji, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Blaine, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Bloomington, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
    Byron Marketplace           Byron, Minnesota
    Byerly's                    Chanhassen, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Chanhassen, Minnesota
    Brink's Market              Chisago City, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Circle Pines, Minnesota
    Super One                   Cloquet, Minnesota
    Marketplace Foods           Cokato, Minnesota
    Jensen's Foods              Coon Rapids, Minnesota
    Hugo's                      Crookston, Minnesota
    Northern Star Co-op         Deer River, Minnesota
    Super One                   1316 W Arrowhead Rd., Duluth, MN
    Super One                   5928 E Superior St., Duluth, MN
    Super One                   Burning Tree Road, Duluth, MN
    Super One                   5300 Bristol St., Duluth, MN
    Von Hanson's                2141 Cliff Rd., Eagan, MN
    Von Hanson's                1320 Duckwood Dr., Eagan, MN
    Hugo's                      East Grand Forks, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Edina, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Faribault, Minnesota
    Family Fresh Market         Farmington, Minnesota
    Food Pride                  Glenwood, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Hugo, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Hutchinson, Minnesota
    Fiesta Foods                Lake City, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Mankato, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Moorhead, Minnesota
    Hornbacher's                Moorhead, Minnesota
    Sunmart                     Moorhead, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             New Ulm, Minnesota
    County Market               North Branch, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                North Oaks, Minnesota
    Osseo Meats                 Osseo, Minnesota
    Supervalu                   Pequot Lakes, Minnesota
    Family Market               Pine River, Minnesota
    Village Market              Prior Lake, Minnesota
    Tersteeg's                  Redwood Falls, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Rochester, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Rogers, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Savage, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Marketplace Foods           St. Michael, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   St. Paul, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Stillwater, Minnesota
    Hugo's                      Thief River Falls, Minnesota
    Super One                   Thief River Falls, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Vadnais Heights, Minnesota
    Fresh Season's Market       Victoria, Minnesota
    Super One                   501 4th St. N, Virginia, MN
    Super One                   1111 17th St. S, Virginia, MN
    Mackenthun's Foods          Waconia, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Waitepark, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Willmar, Minnesota
    Midtown Foods               Winona, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Woodbury, Minnesota
    Bruce's Foods               Wyoming, Minnesota
    Food Fair                   Appleton City, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Ashland, Missouri
    Quick 'N' Tasty Foods       Belton, Missouri
    Snoddy's Market             Boonville, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Brunswick, Missouri
    Dollar Junction             Camdenton, Missouri
    Prenger Foods               Centralia, Missouri
    Prenger's Extreme Mart      Centralia, Missouri
    Piggly Wiggly               Chillicothe, Missouri
    Eastgate Foods              Columbia, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Business Loop 70, Columbia, MO
    Moser's Discount Foods      4808 Rangeline St., Columbia, MO
    Patricia's                  Columbia, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Concordia, Missouri
    Fairway Groceries           Eugene, Missouri
    John's Super                Excelsior Springs, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Fulton, Missouri
    Quik Chek                   Glasgow, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Grain Valley, Missouri
    C & S Grocers               Harrisburg, Missouri
    Village Market              Hermann, Missouri
    5-Star Supermarket          Hermitage, Missouri
    Piggly Wiggly               Higginsville, Missouri
    Lloyd's Foods               Holden, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Holts Summit, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Huntsville, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Independence, Missouri
    Sun Fresh                   E 24 Highway, Independence, MO
    Sun Fresh                   So. Sterling, Independence, MO
    Moser's Discount Foods      Jefferson City, Missouri
    Schulte's Fresh Foods       Jefferson City, Missouri
    Brookside Marketplace       Kansas City, Missouri
    C & C Produce               Kansas City, Missouri
    Cash & Carry                Kansas City, Missouri
    Cosentino's Market          Kansas City, Missouri
    Festival Foods              Kansas City, Missouri
    Happy Foods                 Kansas City, Missouri
    Hen House                   Kansas City, Missouri
    Leon's United Super         Kansas City, Missouri
    Snyder's Super Market       Kansas City, Missouri
    Sun Fresh                   E 50th Terrace, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   Nw Prairie Vw Rd, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   11212 Holmes, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   4001 Mill St., Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   N Oak Trafficway, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   N.E. Vivion Rd., Kansas City, MO
    Tonys Food Mart             Kansas City, Missouri
    John's Super                Kearney, Missouri
    Dave's Country Market       Lexington, Missouri
    Prenger's Foods             Macon, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Marshall, Missouri
    Bratcher's Market           Moberly, Missouri
    Bratcher's Market           Montgomery City, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Oak Grove, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Odessa, Missouri
    5-Star Supermarket          Osceola, Missouri
    Hy-Klas Foods               Plattsburg, Missouri
    Hy Klas Foods               Polo, Missouri
    Food Fair                   Rich Hill, Missouri
    Red X                       Riverside, Missouri
    Hometown Foods              Saint Joseph, Missouri
    Ray's                       Saint Joseph, Missouri
    Ray's                       Savannah, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Sedalia, Missouri
    Hometown Foods              St. Joseph, Missouri
    Roger's                     St. Joseph, Missouri
    The Market                  Sweet Springs, Missouri
    Dave's Country Market       Tipton, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Warrenton, Missouri
    Newman's Foods              Warsaw, Missouri
    Iga                         Weston, Missouri
    Dave's Country Market       Windsor, Missouri
    Super Foods                 Aurora, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 Columbus, Nebraska
    Super Foods                 Geneva, Nebraska
    Skagway                     W State St., Grand Island, NE
    Skagway                     1607 S Locust, Grand Island, NE
    Skagway                     358 N. Pine, Grand Island, NE
    Super Saver                 Grand Island, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               Hastings, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               1709 Washington, Lincoln, NE
    Russ's Market               6300 Havelock, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               2840 South 70M, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               4400 S 33rd St., Lincoln, NE
    Russ's Market               130 North 66th, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               1550 S Coddington, Lincoln, NE
    Save Best                   Lincoln, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 5440 South 56, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 2525 Pine Lake Road, Lincoln, NE
    Super Saver                 233 North 48th, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 Cornhusker Highway, Lincoln, NE
    Super Saver                 840 Fallbrook Blvd., Lincoln, NE
    Super Saver                 Omaha, Nebraska
    Wahoo Super                 Wahoo, Nebraska
    Super Foods                 Weeping Water, Nebraska
    Super Foods                 Wymore, Nebraska
    Cash Wise Foods             Bismarck, North Dakota
    Dan's Supermarket           3101 N. 11th Street, Bismarck, ND
    Dan's Supermarket           S. Washington St., Bismarck, ND
    Leever's Foods              Devils Lake, North Dakota
    Cash Wise Foods             Fargo, North Dakota
    Hornbacher's                South University Drive, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                1532 32nd Ave. South, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                4101 13th Ave. South, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                2510 Broadway, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                4151 45th St. South, Fargo, ND
    Hugo's                      Grafton, North Dakota
    Hugo's                      S Columbia Rd., Grand Forks, ND
    Hugo's                      1750 32nd Ave. S, Grand Forks, ND
    Hugo's                      1925 13th Ave. N, Grand Forks, ND
    Super One                   Grand Forks, North Dakota
    Hugo's                      Jamestown, North Dakota
    Dan's Supermarket           Mandan, North Dakota
    Econo Foods                 Wahpeton, North Dakota
    Sunmart                     West Fargo, North Dakota
    Dick's Fresh Market         Amery, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Appleton, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Ashland, Wisconsin
    Nilssen's Foods             Baldwin, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Beloit, Wisconsin
    Gordy's Food & Liquor       Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
    Iga                         Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
    County Market               Eau Claire, Wisconsin
    Nilssen's Foods             Ellsworth, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Family Fresh Foods          Hudson, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Hurley, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Janesville, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Kenosha, Wisconsin
    County Market               Ladysmith, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Madison, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
    Family Fresh Foods          New Richmond, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Oak Creek, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Onalaska, Wisconsin
    Dick's Fresh Market         Osceola, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Park Falls, Wisconsin
    Iga                         Prescott, Wisconsin
    Marketplace Foods           Rice Lake, Wisconsin
    Pik N Save                  Ripon, Wisconsin
    Family Fresh Foods          River Falls, Wisconsin
    Econo Foods                 Somerset, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Superior, Wisconsin


ROYAL BANK: Faces Investor Class Action Over Rights Issue Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Armitstead, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a group
of investors, including the pension funds for miners and
electricity workers, are suing the Royal Bank of Scotland for
millions of pounds of losses sustained in 2008.

In a ground-breaking joint-writ issued on March 28, the
shareholders are demanding full compensation for their investments
in RBS's GBP12 billion rights issue that was launched shortly
before the bank imploded.

The eight-page writ says: "The Claimants have suffered loss in
respect of the New Shares as a result of untrue and misleading
statements in the Prospectus."

It adds: "Under FSMA section 90, RBS is liable to pay compensation
to each of the Claimants for its losses, amounting to the
difference between the price paid for the New Shares and their
actual value.  The Claimants will say that such difference was the
whole or a substantial part of the price paid."

The 21 claimants are also after interest payments.  The claimants
listed in the writ include the Trustees of the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme, the Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, the
Electricity Pensions Trustees, and a series of individuals ING
funds.

The class action is the first of its kind in the UK in the wake of
the banking crisis.  A similar case was brought by investors in
America but was thrown out by a New York court last year.

Clive Zietman, Head of Commercial Litigation at Stewarts Law,
said: "Unless the matter can be resolved amicably, the claimants
intend to pursue this litigation vigorously and through to trial
in order to seek appropriate redress from the court."

The claim is a blow to RBS which was on March 27 shown to have the
biggest capital black hole according to Sir Mervyn King's
estimates.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Millennium Actions v. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. continues to defend its
subsidiary against the so-called Millennium Actions, 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.

Several actions, the Millennium Actions, have been filed in
various jurisdictions naming GlobeOp Financial Services S.A., a
Company subsidiary, as a defendant in respect of claims arising
out of valuation agent services performed by GlobeOp for the
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund L.P. and Millennium Global
Emerging Fund Ltd., referred to as the Millennium Funds.

The Millennium Actions include (i) a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors in the Millennium Funds filed on May 14, 2012, asserting
claims of $844 million (the alleged aggregate value of assets
under management by the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak
valuation); (ii) an arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom
on behalf of the Millennium Funds' investment manager, which
commenced with a request for arbitration on July 11, 2011, seeking
an indemnity of $26.5 million for sums paid by way of settlement
to the Millennium Funds in a separate arbitration to which GlobeOp
was not a party, as well as an indemnity for any losses that may
be incurred by the investment manager in the U.S. class action;
and (iii) a claim in the same arbitration proceeding by the
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd against GlobeOp
for damages alleged to be in excess of $160 million.  These
actions allege that GlobeOp breached its contractual obligations
and/or negligently breached a duty of care in the performance of
services for the funds and that, inter alia, GlobeOp should have
discovered and reported a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the
portfolio manager employed by the investment manager.  The
putative class action pending in the Southern District of New York
also asserts claims against SS&C identical to the claims against
GlobeOp in that action.  In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted
counterclaims against both the investment managers and the
Millennium Emerging Credit Mast Fund Ltd for indemnity, including
in respect of the U.S. class action.  The Company says it cannot
predict the outcome of these matters.

GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides reimbursement
of various litigation costs up to pre-determined limits.  In 2012,
GlobeOp was reimbursed for litigation costs under the applicable
insurance policy.

The Company believes it has strong defenses to the Millennium
Actions and is vigorously contesting these matters.

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- is
a Delaware corporation based in Windsor, Connecticut.  The Company
is a provider of mission-critical, sophisticated software products
and software-enabled services that allow financial services
providers to automate complex business processes and effectively
manage their information processing requirements.  The Company's
clients include commercial lenders, corporate treasury groups,
insurance and pension funds, municipal finance groups and real
estate property managers.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Anwar" Suit vs. GlobeOp Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action lawsuit initiated
by Pasha S. Anwar against a subsidiary of SS&C Technologies
Holdings, Inc., 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, 2009, the Company's subsidiary, GlobeOp Financial
Services S.A., was named as a defendant in a putative class
action, the Anwar Action, filed by Pasha S. Anwar in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against multiple defendants relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and
Greenwich Sentry Partners L.P., or the FG Funds, and the alleged
losses sustained by the FG Funds' investors as a result of Bernard
Madoff's Ponzi scheme.  The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary
duties by GlobeOp and negligence in the performance of its duties
and seeks to recover as damages the net losses sustained by
investors in the putative class, together with applicable
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  GlobeOp served as
administrator for the Greenwich Sentry fund from October 2003
through August 2006 and for the Greenwich Sentry Partners fund
from May 2006 through August 2006, during which time the net asset
value of the Greenwich Sentry Fund was $135 million and the
Greenwich Sentry Partners Fund was $6 million.  GlobeOp has
opposed a motion to certify a class of plaintiff-investors, which
is currently pending before the court.  Discovery is ongoing.  The
Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

GlobeOp believes it has complied with the terms of its service
agreements with the FG Funds and that it does not have any
fiduciary obligations relating to the FG Funds or their investors.
GlobeOp believes that it has strong defenses in the Anwar Action
and the actions brought by the litigation trustee and is
vigorously contesting these matters.

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- is
a Delaware corporation based in Windsor, Connecticut.  The Company
is a provider of mission-critical, sophisticated software products
and software-enabled services that allow financial services
providers to automate complex business processes and effectively
manage their information processing requirements.  The Company's
clients include commercial lenders, corporate treasury groups,
insurance and pension funds, municipal finance groups and real
estate property managers.


STANDARD FIRE: Michael Best Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul E. Benson, Esq. -- pebenson@michaelbest.com -- Joseph Louis
Olson, Esq. and Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq. --
bakaplan@michaelbest.com -- at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP,
report that in general, class action defendants want to litigate
in federal court where the law governing class certification is
more advantageous. Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs' counsel have
engaged in numerous tactics to avoid federal courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently put an end to one such practice.
In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the Court unanimously
ruled that putative class representatives cannot avoid federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) by
declaring that the class will not seek or accept damages exceeding
$5 million.  This decision will make it easier for defendants to
remove large class actions from state to federal court.

                Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

CAFA, enacted in large part to prevent plaintiff forum-shopping,
was meant to ensure class actions of a certain size and interstate
nature would be heard in federal court.  Pursuant to CAFA, federal
courts have original jurisdiction over class actions when, among
other things, the amount in controversy is over $5 million.  To
determine the amount in controversy, CAFA requires a district
court to aggregate the value of all the individual claims of every
putative class member.

                   Standard Fire Ins. v. Knowles

Knowles filed a state-court class action complaint in Miller
County, Arkansas, alleging Standard Fire Insurance Company
(Standard Fire) breached its homeowner insurance policies by not
paying contractor's retention fees.  Knowles sought to defeat
federal jurisdiction by declaring, pre-certification, that both,
"Plaintiff and Class .  .  . will seek to recover total aggregate
damages of less than five million dollars."

Standard Fire removed the case to federal court under CAFA, and
Knowles moved to remand.  Although the federal district court
found Standard Fire had met its burden of proof in showing the
amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, it nonetheless granted
Knowles' motion to remand based entirely on Knowles' declaration.
This remand was in accordance with Eighth Circuit precedent, as
the plaintiff is "the master of the complaint."  Bell v. Hershey
Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding named plaintiffs can
avoid federal jurisdiction by purporting to limit the damages of
themselves and the putative claims to less than $5 million).
After the Eighth Circuit denied permission to appeal, the Supreme
Court granted certiorari.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether, in a putative
class-action, a plaintiff could stymie federal jurisdiction simply
by declaring the class he or she wishes to represent will not seek
damages in excess of $5 million.  The Supreme Court unanimously
vacated and remanded, holding the stipulation should have been
ignored for purposes of determining jurisdiction.  Indeed, the
Court held Knowles' declaration was binding on him but not on
putative class members.  This is because, "a plaintiff who files a
proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed
class before the class is certified." Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564
U.S. (2011).  As jurisdiction is evaluated at the time the case
was filed, and as Knowles was the only plaintiff at that time, the
declaration conceding the amount in controversy was binding only
as to Knowles and not as to absent class members.  The Court
pronounced "the stipulation at issue here can tie Knowles' hands,
but it does not resolve the amount-in-controversy question in
light of his inability to bind the rest of the class."
Implications

This ruling helps ensure class action plaintiffs cannot circumvent
CAFA's purpose simply by purporting to limit their own damages and
the damages of class members they do not yet represent.  This
protection for absent class members is consistent with the Supreme
Court's recent ruling in Smith v. Bayer Corp., that proposed class
actions do not bind unnamed class members.  This case further
reinforces the Supreme Court's trend of taking substance over
form; looking beyond artful pleading tactics and analyzing the
actual facts of the case at hand.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Still Defending Deepwater Horizon-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. continues to defend and litigate claims arising
from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident, 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 22, 2010, the Ultra-Deepwater Floater Deepwater Horizon
sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and
explosion on the rig.  Eleven persons were declared dead and
others were injured as a result of the incident.  At the time of
the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was located approximately 41
miles off the coast of Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon Block 252
and was contracted to BP America Production Co. (together with its
affiliates, "BP").

The Company is currently unable to estimate the full impact the
Macondo well incident will have on it.  The Company has recognized
a liability for estimated loss contingencies that it believes are
probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made.  This
liability takes into account certain events related to the
litigation and investigations arising out of the incident.  There
are loss contingencies related to the Macondo well incident that
the Company believes are reasonably possible and for which the
Company does not believe a reasonable estimate can be made.  These
contingencies could increase the liabilities the Company
ultimately recognizes.  As of December 31, 2012, and 2011, the
liability associated for estimated loss contingencies that the
Company believes are probable and for which a reasonable estimate
can be made was $1.9 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively,
recorded in other current liabilities.

The Company has also recognized an asset associated with the
portion of the Company's estimated losses, primarily related to
the personal injury and fatality claims of the Company's crew and
vendors, that the Company believes is recoverable from insurance.
Although the Company has available policy limits that could result
in additional amounts recoverable from insurance, recovery of such
additional amounts is not probable and the Company is not
currently able to estimate such amounts.  The Company's estimates
involve a significant amount of judgment.  As a result of new
information or future developments, the Company may adjust its
estimated loss contingencies arising out of the Macondo well
incident or its estimated recoveries from insurance, and the
resulting losses could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.  In the year ended December 31, 2012,
the Company received $15 million of cash proceeds from insurance
recoveries for losses related to the personal injury and fatality
claims of its crew and vendors.  Additionally, BP received $84
million of cash proceeds from insurance recoveries under the
Company's insurance program for losses that were covered under the
Company's contractual indemnity of BP.  The payments made to BP
resulted in corresponding reductions of the Company's insurance
recoverable asset and contingent liability.  As of December 31,
2012, and 2011, the insurance recoverable asset related to
estimated losses primarily for additional personal injury and
fatality claims of the Company's crew and vendors that the Company
believes are probable of recovery from insurance was $141 million
and $233 million, respectively, recorded in other assets.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").
The first phase of a three-phase trial was originally scheduled to
commence in March 2012.  In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiff's
Steering Committee (the "PSC") announced that they had agreed to a
partial settlement related primarily to private party
environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort
related claims (the "BP/PSC Settlement").  The BP/PSC Settlement
agreement provides that (a) to the extent permitted by law, BP
will assign to the settlement class certain of BP's claims, rights
and recoveries against the Company for damages with protections
such that the settlement class is barred from collecting any
amounts from the Company unless it is finally determined that the
Company cannot recover such amounts from BP, and (b) the
settlement class releases all claims for compensatory damages
against the Company but purports to retain claims for punitive
damages against it.

On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the
economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the
PSC.  After giving consideration to the BP/PSC Settlement, the MDL
Court ordered that the first phase of the trial, at which
liability will be determined, be rescheduled for February 2013.
The MDL Court subsequently issued an order with a projected trial
date of June 2013 for the second phase of the trial, which will
address conduct related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons
between April 22, 2010, and approximately September 19, 2010, and
seek to determine the amount of oil actually released during the
period.  Due to discovery requirements, the second phase of the
trial is being rescheduled to September 2013.  There can be no
assurance as to the outcome of the trial, as to the timing of any
phase of trial, that the Company will not enter into additional
settlements as to some or all of the matters related to the
Macondo well incident, including those to be determined at a
trial, or the timing or terms of any such settlements.

In April 2011, several defendants in the Macondo well litigation
before the Multi-District Litigation Panel (the "MDL") filed
cross-claims or third-party claims against the Company and certain
of its subsidiaries, and other defendants.  BP filed a claim
seeking contribution under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA")
and maritime law, subrogation and claimed breach of contract,
unseaworthiness, negligence and gross negligence.  BP also sought
a declaration that it is not liable in contribution,
indemnification, or otherwise to the Company.  Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation ("Anadarko"), which owned a 25 percent non-operating
interest in the Macondo well, asserted claims of negligence, gross
negligence, and willful misconduct and is seeking indemnity under
state and maritime law and contribution under maritime and state
law as well as OPA.  MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC ("MOEX"), which owns a
10 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, filed
claims of negligence under state and maritime law, gross
negligence under state law, gross negligence and willful
misconduct under maritime law and is seeking indemnity under state
and maritime law and contribution under maritime law and OPA.

Cameron International Corporation ("Cameron"), the manufacturer
and designer of the blowout preventer, asserted multiple claims
for contractual indemnity and declarations regarding contractual
obligations under various contracts and quotes and is also seeking
non-contractual indemnity and contribution under maritime law and
OPA.  As part of the BP/PSC Settlement, one or more of these
claims against the Company and certain of the Company's
subsidiaries may be assigned to the PSC settlement class.
Halliburton Company ("Halliburton"), which provided cementing and
mud-logging services to the operator, filed a claim against the
Company seeking contribution and indemnity under maritime law,
contractual indemnity and alleging negligence and gross
negligence.  Additionally, certain other third parties filed
claims against the Company for indemnity and contribution.

In April 2011, the Company filed cross-claims and counter-claims
against BP, Halliburton, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, certain of these
parties' affiliates, the U.S. and certain other third parties.
The Company seeks indemnity, contribution, including contribution
under OPA, and subrogation under OPA, and the Company has asserted
claims for breach of warranty of workmanlike performance, strict
liability for manufacturing and design defect, breach of express
contract, and damages for the difference between the fair market
value of Deepwater Horizon and the amount received from insurance
proceeds.  The Company's agreement with the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") limits the Company's ability to seek
indemnification with respect to certain of these matters against
the owners of the Macondo well.  The Company is not pursuing
arbitration on the key contractual issues with BP; instead, the
Company is relying on the court to resolve the disputes.  With
regard to the U.S., the Company is not currently seeking recovery
of monetary damages, but rather a declaration regarding relative
fault and contribution via credit, setoff, or recoupment.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. --
http://www.deepwater.com/-- provides offshore contract drilling
services for oil and gas wells.  Specializing in technically
demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business with a
particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling
services, the Company contracts its drilling rigs, related
equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill
oil and gas wells.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Securities Suit in New York Stayed Since Feb.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York granted
in February 2013 Transocean Ltd.'s motion to stay a 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.

A federal securities class action is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and its former chief executive officers and one of its acquired
companies as defendants.  In the action, a former shareholder of
the acquired company alleges that the joint proxy statement
related to the Company's shareholder meeting in connection with
the Company's merger with the acquired company violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claims that the acquired company's shareholders received
inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the
alleged violations and seeks compensatory and rescissory damages
and attorneys' fees.  In addition, the Company is obligated to pay
the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which
may be covered by the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance, subject to a deductible.  On October 4, 2012, the court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the action.  On October 5,
2012, the Company asked the court to stay the action pending a
decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated
action involving other parties on the grounds that the Second
Circuit's decision could be relevant to the disposition of this
case.  On October 10, 2012, the court stayed discovery pending a
decision on the motion to stay.

On February 19, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to stay pending the decision of the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. --
http://www.deepwater.com/-- provides offshore contract drilling
services for oil and gas wells.  Specializing in technically
demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business with a
particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling
services, the Company contracts its drilling rigs, related
equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill
oil and gas wells.


TWL CORPORATION: Fifth Circuit Revives Employees' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit vacated a bankruptcy court order denying a motion for
class certification filed by former employees of TWL Corporation
and its primary subsidiary, TWL Knowledge Group, Inc., and
dismissing the employees' adversary proceeding.  The Fifth Circuit
said the reasons for the bankruptcy court's order are unclear.
The Fifth Circuit remanded the matter to the district court to
remand to the bankruptcy court for reconsideration in light of
appeals court's opinion.

Frank Teta served as a vice president of TWL.  In September 2008,
TWL allegedly laid off the majority of its workforce, including
Mr. Teta.  In November, Mr. Teta commenced the class action
adversary proceeding within TWL's bankruptcy, alleging violations
of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109.  The bankruptcy court denied Teta's
related motion for class certification and dismissed the adversary
proceeding.  The district court affirmed.

The case is FRANK TETA, Appellant, v. MICHELLE CHOW, Appellee.
No. 12-40271 (5th Cir.).  A copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 29,
2013 decision is available at http://is.gd/RWx74Lfrom Leagle.com.

TWL Corporation and its primary subsidiary, TWL Knowledge Group,
Inc., were in the business of providing workplace learning,
training, and certification programs.

TWL Corporation and TWL Knowledge Group, Inc., fka Trinity
Workplace Learning Corporation, filed voluntary Chapter 11
petitions (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Case Nos. 08-42773 and 08-42774) on
Oct. 19, 2008.  Judge Brenda T. Rhoades presides over the case.
J. Mark Chevallier, Esq. -- mchevallier@mcguirecraddock.com --
at McGuire, Craddock & Strother, P.C., served as the Debtors'
counsel.  In its petition, TWL Corp. estimated $1 million to
$10 million in assets and $10 million to $50 million in
liabilities.  TWL's reorganization efforts, however, were
unsuccessful, and the court converted the bankruptcy case to
Chapter 7 and appointed Michelle Chow as trustee of the estate.

                 Guidance for Class Suits

Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans wrote an
opinion last week giving guidance on when bankruptcy courts should
allow class lawsuits and class claims for violation of the
so-called Warn Act resulting from mass firings without the
required 60-days' notice.

The report recounts that the bankruptcy court had dismissed a
class suit for violating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.  The lower court also dismissed the class claim
one worker filed on behalf of about 130 others.  The district
court upheld dismissal of the class claim and the class lawsuit.

According to the report, on appeal, Circuit Judge Carolyn King
wrote a 2-1 opinion returning the case to the bankruptcy court for
a redetermination of whether the suit could proceed on a class
basis.  Circuit Judge James E. Graves Jr. agreed with the result,
though he would have ruled that a class suit was proper.  Judge
King said that in bankruptcy, as opposed to a lawsuit outside of
bankruptcy, a class with 130 members might not be large enough
because the claims objections process provides a procedure for
efficient disposition of claims.  She also said the bankruptcy
court should consider the cost of a class suit because it would
deplete assets for distribution to creditors.

Mr. Rochelle notes that Judge King appears to say there is no
reason for a class suit if the bankrupt company admits liability
for violating the Warn Act. If there are defenses to liability,
she seemed in favor of a class suit because she said "workers
cannot be expected to proceed pro se in the claims process."
Judge King sent the case back to bankruptcy court because there
had been no statement about whether the Chapter 7 trustee would
raise defenses to liability.

Judge Graves, the report discloses, appeared to agree with courts
recognizing "that treating Warn Act claims as class adversary
proceedings is the best way to preserve the estate's assets."  He
pointed out how the mere filing of the class claim relieved each
employee of the need to file a claim by the deadline. He said if a
class claim is tossed out, each worker should be given an
opportunity to file an individual claim.

The case is Teta v. Chow (In re TWL Corp.), 12-40271, Fifth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans).

TWL Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. E.D. Tex Case No.
08-42773) on Oct. 19, 2008.  Mark Chevallier, Esq., at
McGuire, Craddock & Strother, P.C., served as counsel.


UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Bid on Guantanamo Bay Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ordered the government to release, with some exceptions,
unclassified public versions of the materials filed in a former
Guantanamo Bay detainee's case.

In a March 8 ruling that was recently unclassified, U.S. District
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., partially rejected
the government's bid to shield certain records on Somali native
Mohammed Sulaymon Barre, and largely granted Barre's cross-motion
to compel disclosure.

"The court is troubled by the government's apparent lack of
urgency in issuing public versions of classified materials filed
in Guantanamo proceedings," Lamberth wrote.

"The government's arguments are unavailing and largely boil down
to this: 'Declassification is complicated and time consuming and
we already have a lot of work -- please don't pile on.'"

Lamberth said that while he "is sympathetic to the government's
position . . . classified filings should be made available to the
public, with appropriate redactions."

Barre was arrested and detained in 2001 while living as a refugee
in Pakistan. He was interrogated about his former job at a Somali-
based financial institution that purportedly sent money to and
from customers in Pakistan.  The Pakistani government suspected
Barre had ties to Al Wafa, an Islamic foundation accused of
terrorist activities.

But the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the petition
challenging his detention in court, says Barre is believed to have
been sold to the United States for a bounty.

Once in the custody of U.S. forces, Barre was detained at military
bases in Kandahar and Bagram before being transferred to the
prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he claims he was tortured.

He was released in 2009, leading a judge to dismiss his habeas
petition as moot.

As his appeal was pending, Barre sought a court order forcing the
government to publicly disclose three of his classified filings.
He claimed it "would be highly misleading for the public to have
available to it only the government's selective version" of the
circumstances surrounding his capture and detention at Guantanamo.

The government, however, fought to keep many of the documents
classified, citing national security concerns.  Specifically, it
asked the court to shield the location of an al-Qaida training
facility, along with an unspecified word that it claimed had been
mistakenly disclosed in a court filing.

Judge Lamberth said these pieces of information are not protected,
because they "have been officially acknowledged and remain
publicly available."  If the disclosure was inadvertent, as the
government claimed, Lamberth questioned why the government "made
no attempt to remove or replace" the public document with a
redacted version.  Lamberth also chided the government for
dragging its feet on disclosing public versions of the three
classified filings simply because Barre has since been released
and his petition dismissed.

"[T]his ignores the inherent public interest in Guantanamo
litigation generally, and in the facts related to the release of
this detainee in particular," Lamberth wrote.

"Here, petitioner's documents have remained essentially under seal
for 42 months, and the court sees no reason to write the
government a blank check and allow them to produce the documents
at some unknown point in the future."

Lamberth gave the government 90 days -- longer than the 30-day
deadline sought by Barre -- to produce unclassified public
versions of the three court filings and the reprocessed factual
return.  Allowing the government to indefinitely withhold
documents would provide a "backdoor" for the government to
effectively seal a case, "which is exclusively the prerogative of
the court," Lamberth wrote.

The judge allowed the government to protect some documents, such
as the litigation materials shown to Barre and his attorney in
detention.

Barre had argued that he should be able to reveal the contents of
those documents following his release in 2009 -- an argument
Lamberth called "rather novel" and "meritless."


UNITED STATES: Salinas Airport May Join Class Action v. FAA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Tualla, writing for KIONrightnow.com, reports that the
Salinas Municipal Airport may join a class-action lawsuit against
the Federal Aviation Administration to keep its control tower
open.

All airport tower closures will begin April 7.  The airport said
the tower allows aerial applicators to spray more than 200,000
crops in the county to prevent infestations during the most
critical times.

"The airports have exercised every available option to continue
the air traffic control operations out of the airport and to
prevent the closure," said Brett Godown, manager for the Salinas
Municipal Airport.  "The city is investigating whether we have the
financial means to participate in the class-action lawsuit and to
also evaluate what the final outcome would be like if the class
action was successful."

He said the tower plays a vital role, helping coordinate air
traffic coming in and out, in addition to allowing aerial
applicators protect hundreds of thousands of crops.

The money to file would come out of the airport's operating
budget.

"Right now we don't know.  The more airports that participate, the
cheaper the cost," he said.

As for the claims Central Coast News has received from people who
say aerial applicators don't need the towers to fly over ag land,
Mr. Godown said if it's clear out it doesn't affect them at all.
But when the fog rolls in, they're limited as far as getting in
and how many helicopters can circulate at a time.  He said he's
working with the FAA to see if it can at least amend the air space
that would allow for simultaneous operations at a time.  If the
cost to file the lawsuit is too high, the airport will not join
the lawsuit.

The airport in Spokane, Washington, was the first to hop on board
the lawsuit.


                             *********

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  * * *