CAR_Public/130408.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 8, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 68

                             Headlines



AIR METHODS: Faces "Helmick" Wage and Hour Suit in California
ALLIED VETERANS: Faces Class Action Over "Charity" Scam
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Concealing Information
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Overtime Class Action
ARIZONA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ELL Instruction Class Action

ARIZONA: Some Sections of Immigration Law Unconstitutional
BRAVO!: Recalls Three Raw Frozen Food Diet for Dogs and Cats
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over 2008 Offering Ongoing
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Has 60 Days to Respond to ERISA Complaint

CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Certify Class in Bond Litigation Pending
CITIGROUP INC: CAI Defends CSO Investors Suit Pending in N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Antitrust Suits
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in N.Y. & Pa.
CITIGROUP INC: Defends Against Credit Crisis-Related Suits

CITIGROUP INC: Sept. 12 Hearing on Accord in Interchange Fee Suit
CITIGROUP INC: April 8 Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement
CITIGROUP INC: Class Action Attorneys Allegedly Inflate Fees
COLLEGIATE LICENSING: Insurers Can't Intervene in Suit
COMCAST CORP: Cato Institute Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

DECKERS OUTDOOR: Defends Securities Class Suit in Delaware
FIRST INTERSTATE: Still Awaits OK of Visa Interchange Suit Deal
GARDNER DENVER: Being Sold to Kohlberg for Too Little, Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal From Dismissal of ARS Suits Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Decisions in MF Global Securities Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Okay of Accord in NYSE Specialist Suits
GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in Hudson Mezzanine Investors' Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in RALI Pass-Thru Certificates Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Mortgage Certificates-Related Suits
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over "Force-Placed" Hazard Insurance
GOLDMAN SACHS: Fannie Mae-Related Class Suit Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Challenging CDO Disclosure Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Municipal Securities Remains Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Time to Appeal Settlement Approval Has Expired
GOLIVE! MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Over Underpayment of Claims
HAIER AMERICA: Recalls Additional 41,000 Chest Freezers
INTUIT INC: Inks Agreement to Settle TurboTax-Related Suits

ISRAEL: Gov't Agencies Face Class Action Over Unlawful Fees
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Nixes Appeal on Class Action Settlement
LIVINGSOCIAL INC: Judge Trims Plaintiffs' Lawyers $3MM Legal Fees
LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Plaintiff Balks at Class Action Dismissal Bid
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Fails to Reverse Class Certification Ruling

MCKESSON CORP: Propoxyphene Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
METROLINK: July 29 Hearing on Identity Theft Class Action
MGIC INVESTMENT: Wins Final OK of Accord in Discrimination Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Nine RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
MGIC INVESTMENT: Plea for Relief in C-BASS Suit Not Appealed

MIDWEST TRADING: Recalls 9,400 Remote-Controlled Helicopters
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Awaits Class Cert. Ruling in Securities Suit
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Suits Alleging False Advertising
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settlement in "Chavez" Suit Is Now Final
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Still Defends "Wellman" Class Suit in Canada

NBT BANCORP: Appeal From Overdraft Fees Suit's Dismissal Pending
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Takes Measures After Head Injury Class Actions
NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Officers Forced to Fill Quotas, Trial Reveals
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Defends Four Product Liability Class Suits
RICH PRODUCTS: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products

SAN DIEGO HOSPICE: Sued for Mass Firings Without Notice
SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Judge Balks at Coercive Tactics in Wage Suit
SCOTT HARRINGTON: May Face Suit Over Dental Compliance Violations
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Defective ECB Suit
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cane Juice

TYSON FOODS: Recalls 127,000 Lbs of Breaded Chicken Products
ULTRATECH INC: Plaintiff Seeks Dismissal of "Rice" Class Suit
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends "Bristol" Suit in Massachusetts
WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Court Refused to Dismiss Securities Suit
WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit

WALTER ENERGY: Appeal in Ontario Securities Suit Abandoned
WILHELMINA INT'L: Receives Summons in Connection With Class Suit

* Judge Awards Damages in San Allen Employment Litigation
* Judge Dismisses Libor Manipulation Claims Against 16 Banks
* Roe v. Wade Decision Remains Controversial After 40 Years


                             *********


AIR METHODS: Faces "Helmick" Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Air Methods Corporation is facing a wage and hour class action
lawsuit in California, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 30, 2013, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Helmick and Williams v. Air Methods Corporation,
filed in Superior Court in Alameda County, California.  The
Company filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on March 4,
2013.  The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime,
failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay compensation in
lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages on termination,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful business
practices and unfair competition within the jurisdiction of the
state of California.  The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory
damages and other applicable statutory damages, penalties and
wages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and
costs.

The Company says it is currently evaluating the merits of the
lawsuit and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
whether the Company may be required to pay damages, settlement
costs, or legal costs.

Air Methods Corporation -- http://www.airmethods.com/-- a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, was
established in Colorado in 1982 and now serves as the largest
provider of air medical emergency transport services and systems
throughout the United States of America.


ALLIED VETERANS: Faces Class Action Over "Charity" Scam
-------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that "Allied
Veterans" Internet casinos raised $290 million by claiming "most"
of the money would go to veterans' charities, but kept more than
98 percent of it, consumers claim in a RICO class action.

Lead defendants Allied Veterans of the World and Affiliates,
Allied Veterans Management Group and International Internet
Technologies are among dozens sued in Federal Court by lead
plaintiff Linda Stepps.

Stepps claim the defendants ran their scam from 2007 to 2012.

The complaint states: "Defendant Allied Veterans of the World Inc.
and its associated defendant companies participated in a multi-
state and multi-county business that conducted illegal gambling in
Internet casinos under the guise of legal electronic sweepstakes.
To promote their business, defendants and others operated the
Internet casinos utilizing the trade name of 'Allied Veterans' and
represented that they donated anywhere from '70 percent,' 'most'
to 'all' of the net proceeds or profits from their gambling
operations for the benefit of American war veterans.

"On March 13, 2013, the warrant, a federal criminal warrant, 'was
served on some of the defendants named herein and certain others
('co-conspirators') in connection with a purported conspiracy and
scheme to defraud the public and governmental agencies.  The
scheme involved, inter alia, deceiving the public into believing
that the money spent, and lost, by plaintiffs and the class (i.e.
patrons of Allied Veterans' business operations) at defendants'
Internet casinos, which operated utilizing the Allied Veterans
name, went to a charitable organization that was a member of the
Veterans Administration, and was utilized for veterans-related
charitable purposes.

"As alleged in the warrant, between 2007 and early 2012,
defendants and those involved in the conspiracy alleged herein
collected from plaintiffs and the class (after paying out
winnings) over $290 million.  However, instead of '70 percent,'
'most' to 'all' of those funds being donated to veterans charities
or utilized for veterans-related charitable purposes, less than 2
percent of the proceeds were donated in accordance with
defendants' representations.  The balance -- over 98 percent of
the net proceeds -- was retained by defendants.

"As such, defendants engaged in misleading, deceptive, and
unlawful conduct by inducing plaintiffs and the class to patronize
defendants' facilities on the basis that the Internet casinos
engaged in legal electronic sweepstake activities and donated the
proceeds of those activities to veterans-related charities.

"This class action is brought for actual damages, treble damages
and attorney's fees to redress violations of Federal law, Florida
law, and deceptive and unfair trade practices arising out of
defendants' illegal business operations."

Stepps seeks class certification and punitive damages for RICO
conspiracy, deceptive trade, breach of contract and other charges.

She is represented by Janine Pollack with Millberg LLP of New York
City, and Norwood Wilner of Jacksonville, Fla.

Here are the defendants: Allied Veterans of the World And
Affiliates Inc.; Allied Veterans Management Group Inc.;
International Internet Technologies LLC.; Grant Park LLC.; I-N-H
Management Co.; Seaside Internet LLC.; Coastal Games LLC.; Bearcon
Management LLC.; M&S Management Services LLC.; MSG Business
Centers Inc.; Game Advice Inc.; Live Oak Internet Services LLC.;
B&M Leasing & Management LLC.; Ginlin LLC.; Davis Internet
Management Co. LLC.; Blue Waters Technologies LLC.; Intelitek
LLC.; Business Center Unlimited Inc.; Lake City Internet Services
LLC.; Seaside Internet-Marion LLC.; Infovice Inc.; B.B.S.
Management Group Inc.; Horry Technologies LLC.; Digitrac Inc.; Jac
Sweeps LLC.; Free Entry Clay County LLC.; Gainesville Internet
Services LLC.; Megjon LLC.; Media Advice Inc.; Capital City
Internet Center Inc.; Seaside Internet-Putnam LLC.; Infohub Inc.;
Davis Internet Management Company LLC.; Gulf Internet Services
LLC.; Jerry Bass; Kelly Mathis Esq.; John M. Hessong; Michael
Davis; Chase Egan Burns; Kristin Burns; Johnny E. Duncan; and Does
1-50.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Concealing Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate Insurance does not
reveal on its online application for auto insurance that it
charges 10% of unearned premiums if a customer cancels, a class
action claims in San Mateo County Court.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims much-
sued American Apparel stiffs workers for overtime, in Superior
Court.


ARIZONA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ELL Instruction Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Joffe-Block, writing for Fronteras Desk, reports that in the
latest twist in a 21-year-old civil rights case, a federal
district judge in Tucson ruled on March 29 that Arizona is no
longer violating a federal law in the way it educates English
Language Learners.

The case, Flores vs. Arizona, is a class action lawsuit brought by
parents of English Language Learners in Nogales, Ariz. in 1992 to
challenge the way the state educates those students.

The case has gone up to the U.S. Supreme Court and come back down.

The March 29 opinion -- in favor of Arizona -- means the state can
continue using a mandatory four-hour block to teach these students
English.  But attorney for the plaintiffs, Tim Hogan of the
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, had argued in court
that model segregates English Language Learners, and keeps them
from learning other subjects.

"So they are deprived of all this academic content in the
meantime, so they get farther behind their peers." Mr. Hogan said.
"It is a prescription for failure for these kids."

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Raner Collins found plaintiffs
did not succeed in proving the state intended to discriminate
against students by using the four-hour block, though he did
suggest criticism of it.

"It appears that the state has made a choice in how it wants to
spend funds on teaching students the English language.  It may
turn out to be penny wise and pound foolish, as at the end of the
day, speaking English, and not having other educational gains in
science, math, etc. will still leave some children behind," Judge
Collins wrote.

"However, this lawsuit is no longer the vehicle to pursue the
myriad of educational issues in this state."

Judge Collins' opinion comes two years after a trial was held on
this matter.  The ruling vacates the court's 2000 decision that
found Arizona was not properly funding ELL education in violation
of the federal Equal Education Opportunities Act.

Mr. Hogan said he has still not decided if he will appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a statement, Arizona's Superintendent John Huppenthal said the
ruling validates the state has made improvements in English
language instruction since 1992.

Meanwhile, a complaint about the four-hour block is pending with
the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.


ARIZONA: Some Sections of Immigration Law Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Guyett, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has ruled sections of a 2011 Indiana immigration law
unconstitutional, making permanent an injunction against a law
inspired by Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The state will forego an appeal on the March 28 ruling, Attorney
General Greg Zoeller said on March 29.

The Indiana bill, signed into law by the previous governor, Mitch
Daniels, permitted warrantless arrests of non-citizens and
prohibited the use of consular IDs as forms of identification.

It was inspired by Arizona's law, known as S.B. 1070 that took
over some aspects of immigration enforcement from the U.S.
government.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National
Immigration Law Center and law firm of Lewis & Kappes brought the
class-action suit, contending Indiana's law allowed police to make
warrantless arrests based on assumed immigration status and
criminalized the usage of a consular identification card.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana said the law violated the Fourth
Amendment because it permitted state and local authorities to
"effect warrantless arrests for matters that are not crimes."

The rest of the law went unchallenged in this lawsuit and is not
part of the judge's ruling.

The state would not appeal the decision although, Mr. Zoeller said
in a statement, his office is defending a challenge to another
section the law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana.

Last summer, Mr. Zoeller said the warrantless arrest aspects of
the Indiana could not be defended following a U. S. Supreme Court
decision on the Arizona immigration law.

Last June, the court struck down a warrantless arrest provision of
the Arizona law and other aspects while upholding the Arizona
law's most controversial aspect, a requirement that police check
the immigration status of people they stop, even for the most
minor of offenses.

Three state senators then filed motions to intervene in the case
and Judge Barker dismissed their motion.

Judge Barker previously issued a preliminary injunction against
the Indiana law so it never went into effect, according to Kelly
Jones Sharp of the ACLU of Indiana.


BRAVO!: Recalls Three Raw Frozen Food Diet for Dogs and Cats
------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo! is voluntarily recalling three of its raw diet frozen foods
for dogs and cats: 5 lb tubes of Bravo! Chicken Balance product
item code 21-405 with "best used by" dates of 3_6_15 and 3_12_15;
2 lb Bravo! Chicken Blend product item code 21-102 with the "best
used by" date of 3_21_15 and 5 lb. bags of Bravo! Beef Blend
Burgers product item code 51-508 with the "best used by" dates of
3_21_15 and 3_22_15, because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella.

This recall is being issued out of an abundance of caution, as
while these products tested negative for pathogens by an
independent third party prior to distribution, they were run on
the same day or an adjacent day to a product that tested positive
for pathogens.  The product that tested positive has been 100
percent contained and is not subject to this recall.

The recall involves only:

   * 5 lb. Bravo! Chicken Balance frozen raw diet chubs (tubes)
     with "best used by" dates of 3_6_15 and 3_12_15 imprinted on
     the side of the plastic casing. Only 26 cases with the
     3_6_15 date were distributed nationally and 36 cases with
     3_12_15 date were distributed nationally.

   * 2 lb. Bravo! Chicken Blend frozen raw diet chubs (tubes)
     with the "best used by" date of 3_21_15 imprinted on the
     side of the plastic casing. Only 67 cases with 3_21_15 date
     were distributed nationally.

   * 5 lb. Bravo! Beef Blend Burgers bags with the "best used by"
     dates of 3_21_15 and 3_22_15 imprinted on the back panel of
     the plastic bag. Only 47 cases with the 3_21_15 date were
     distributed nationally and 55 cases with the 3_22_15 date
     were distributed nationally.

No other products or sizes are affected.

The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets.  The
Company has received no reports of illness in either people or
animals associated with this product.

While these products tested negative, Bravo! is allowing concerned
pet owners to return unopened frozen tubes of food and patties to
the store where purchased for a full refund.  Pet owners should
dispose of unopened product in a safe manner (example, a securely
covered trash receptacle).  Consumers who believe they have opened
these products at home should just dispose of the product in a
safe manner and contact the retailer where they purchased their
product for a full refund.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets
to family members and care givers, the FDA recommends that
everyone follow appropriate pet food handling guidelines when
feeding their pets.  A list of safe pet food handling tips can be
found at:

  http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048182.htm

For more information on the Bravo recall, please visit
http://www.bravorawdiet.com/,or call toll free (866) 922-9222
Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard
Time).


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in
Oklahoma, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012, against the
Company and Aubrey K. McClendon, the Company's president and chief
executive officer, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012,
against the Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10b-5) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based
on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's asset
monetization strategy, including liabilities associated with its
volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions, as well as Mr.
McClendon's personal loans and the Company's internal controls.
The action seeks class certification, damages of an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and other costs.  The Company and other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on December 6,
2012, and the plaintiff filed its response on January 23, 2013.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the
case.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a
producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids
and an active driller of new wells in the United States of
America.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's
operations are focused on discovering and developing
unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over 2008 Offering Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit relating to Chesapeake
Energy Corporation's July 2008 common stock offering is still
proceeding, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and
counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 11, 2009, alleging that the registration statement for
the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on October 13, 2009.  On September 2, 2010, the court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the court certified
the class on March 30, 2012.  The Defendants moved for summary
judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December
16, 2011, and the motion was fully briefed as of
August 21, 2012.  Discovery in the case is proceeding.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the
case.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a
producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids
and an active driller of new wells in the United States of
America.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's
operations are focused on discovering and developing
unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Has 60 Days to Respond to ERISA Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation 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 has 60 days from
February 21, 2013, to respond to a consolidated complaint alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On June 19, July 17 and July 20, 2012, putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against the Company, Chesapeake Energy Savings and
Incentive Stock Bonus Plan (the Plan), and certain of the
Company's officers and directors alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The actions are brought on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan, and allege that as fiduciaries of the
Plan, defendants owed fiduciary duties, which they purportedly
breached by, among other things, failing to manage and administer
the Plan's assets with appropriate skill and care, failing to
disclose material information concerning such matters as the
participation of Aubrey K. McClendon, the Company's president and
chief executive officer, in the Founder Well Participation Program
(FWPP) and his related financing arrangements and the Company's
volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions, engaging in
activities that were in conflict with the best interest of the
Plan, and permitting the Plan to over-concentrate in Chesapeake
stock.  The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages of an
unspecified amount, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.  The three cases have been consolidated, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2013.
The Defendants have 60 days from that date in which to respond.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with this
matter.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a
producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids
and an active driller of new wells in the United States of
America.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's
operations are focused on discovering and developing
unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Certify Class in Bond Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify a class in the consolidated bond litigation
involving Citigroup Inc. 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.

Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former
officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as
Citigroup and Related Parties) have been named as defendants in
the consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION, pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs assert claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of $71 billion of debt securities
and preferred stock issued by Citigroup between May 2006 and
August 2008.  On
July 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing
plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
but denying defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under
Section 11.  Fact discovery began in November 2010, and
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is pending.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket
number 08 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: CAI Defends CSO Investors Suit Pending in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC is defending itself against
a putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors in
CSO Ltd., et al., according to Citigroup Inc.'s March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The SEC is investigating the management and marketing of the
ASTA/MAT and Falcon funds, alternative investment funds managed
and marketed by certain Citigroup affiliates that suffered
substantial losses during the credit crisis.  In addition to the
SEC inquiry, on June 11, 2012, the New York Attorney General
served a subpoena on a Citigroup affiliate seeking documents and
information concerning certain of these funds, and on August 1,
2012, the Massachusetts Attorney General served a Civil
Investigative Demand on a Citigroup affiliate seeking similar
documents and information.  Citigroup is cooperating fully with
these inquiries.

In October 2012, Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC (CAI) was
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate
Special Opportunities Ltd., whose investments were managed
indirectly by a CAI affiliate.  The plaintiff asserts a variety of
state common law claims, alleging that he and other investors were
misled into investing in the funds and were further misled into
not redeeming their investments.  The complaint seeks to recover
more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717
(S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).

In addition, numerous investors in the ASTA/MAT funds have filed
lawsuits or arbitrations against Citigroup and Related Parties
seeking damages and related relief.  Although most of these
investor disputes have been resolved, some remain pending.

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against LIBOR-related antitrust lawsuits, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

                       Regulatory Actions

Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of
Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, and a
consortium of state attorneys general, as well as agencies in
other jurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K.
Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial Services
Agency (JFSA), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss
Competition Commission and the Monetary Authority of Singapore,
are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding
submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various
interbank offered rates and other benchmark rates.  As members of
a number of such panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received
requests for information and documents.  Citigroup says it is
cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and is
responding to the requests.

On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action against
Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. (CGMJ) for, among other
things, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about the
Euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate (TIBOR) and the Japanese yen
London interbank offered rate (LIBOR).  The JFSA issued a business
improvement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in derivatives
related to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from January 10 to
January 23, 2012.  On the same day, the JFSA also took
administrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. (CJL) for
conduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted that
the communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJL
about Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL's
management team.

                 Antitrust and Other Litigation

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD)
LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation
(MDL) proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN
RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.).  Judge
Buchwald has appointed interim lead class counsel for, and
consolidated amended complaints have been filed on behalf of,
three separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-
counter (OTC) purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD
LIBOR; (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments
tied to USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt
securities.  Each of these putative classes alleges that the panel
bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of
the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby causing
plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they purchased.
Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding are individual civil
actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities alleging that
the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress the USD LIBOR
rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and California state law,
causing the Schwab entities to suffer losses on USD LIBOR-linked
financial instruments they owned.  Plaintiffs in these actions
seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the
alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman
Act.  The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, have
moved to dismiss all of the actions that were consolidated into
the MDL proceeding as of June 29, 2012.  Briefing on the motion to
dismiss was completed on September 27, 2012.  Judge Buchwald has
stayed all subsequently filed actions that fall within the scope
of the MDL until the motion to dismiss has been resolved.
Citigroup and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in the 17 such stayed
actions that have been consolidated with or marked as related to
the MDL proceeding.

Eleven of these actions have been brought on behalf of various
putative plaintiff classes, including (i) banks, savings and loans
institutions and credit unions that allegedly suffered losses on
loans they made at interest rates tied to USD LIBOR, (ii) holders
of adjustable-rate mortgages tied to USD LIBOR, and (iii)
individual and municipal purchasers of various financial
instruments tied to USD LIBOR.  The remaining six actions have
been brought by individual plaintiffs, including an entity that
allegedly purchased municipal bonds and various California
counties, municipalities, and related public entities that
invested in various derivatives tied to USD LIBOR.  The Plaintiffs
in each of the 17 stayed actions allege that the panel bank
defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act,
RICO, and/or state antitrust and racketeering laws, and several
plaintiffs also assert common law claims, including fraud, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, interference with
economic advantage, and/or breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and, where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive
relief.

Additional information concerning the stayed actions is publicly
available in court filings under docket numbers 1:12-cv-4205
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-5723 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.),
1:12-cv-5822 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-6056 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-7461 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 2:12-cv-
10903 (C.D. Calif.) (Snyder, J.), 3:12-cv-6571 (N.D. Calif.)
(Conti, J.), 3:13-cv-106 (N.D. Calif.) (Beeler, J.), 4:13-cv-108
(N.D. Calif.) (Ryu, J.), 3:13-cv-109 (N.D. Calif.) (Laporte, J.),
5:13-cv-62 (C.D. Calif.) (Phillips, J.), 3:13-cv-48 (S.D. Calif.)
(Huff, J.), 1:13-cv-346 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:13-cv-407
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 5:13-cv-122 (C.D. Calif.) (Bernal, J.),
1:13-cv-981 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and 1:13-cv-1016 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.).

In addition, on November 27, 2012, an action captioned MARAGOS V.
BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., was filed on behalf of the County
of Nassau against various USD LIBOR panel banks, including
Citibank, N.A., and the other defendants with whom the plaintiff
had entered into interest rate swap transactions.  The action was
commenced in state court and subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
plaintiff asserts claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices
under New York law against the panel bank defendants based on
allegations that the panel banks colluded to artificially suppress
USD LIBOR, thereby lowering the payments the plaintiff received in
connection with various interest rate swap transactions.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and treble damages.  The
defendants have sought consolidation of this action with the MDL
proceeding.  Additional information concerning this action is
publicly available in court filings under docket number 2:12-cv-
6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Spatt, J.).

Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who transacted
in exchange-traded Euroyen futures and option contracts between
June 2006 and September 2010.  This action is captioned LAYDON V.
MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks that are or were
members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation
of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of some of
those banks, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, CJL and CGMJ.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result
of purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and
asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act and the
Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act, and
injunctive relief.  Additional information concerning this action
is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-
cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in N.Y. & Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself from securities class
action lawsuits pending in New York and Pennsylvania, 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.

Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former
officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as
Citigroup and Related Parties) have been named as defendants in a
variety of other putative class actions and individual actions
arising out of similar facts to those alleged in the consolidated
securities litigation and consolidated bond litigation.  These
actions assert a wide range of claims, including claims under the
federal securities laws, Section 90 of the Financial Services and
Markets Act of 2000 (Eng.), Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), and state law.  Additional information
concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings
under the docket numbers 09 Civ. 7359 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 09
Civ. 8755 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 11 Civ. 7672 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl,
J.), 12 Civ. 6653 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 12 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Stein, J.), and Case No. 110105028 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (Sheppard,
J.).

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: Defends Against Credit Crisis-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against credit crisis-related litigations and investigations,
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.

Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former
officers, directors and employees (collectively referred to as
Citigroup and Related Parties) have been named as defendants in
numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for
damages and related relief for losses arising from the global
financial credit crisis that began in 2007. Such matters include,
among other types of proceedings, claims asserted by: (i)
individual investors and purported classes of investors in
Citigroup's common and preferred stock and debt, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state
securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA); and (ii) individual investors and purported
classes of investors in securities and other investments
underwritten, issued or marketed by Citigroup, including
securities issued by other public companies, collateralized debt
obligations (CDOs), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), auction rate
securities (ARS), investment funds, and other structured or
leveraged instruments, which have suffered losses as a result of
the credit crisis.  These matters have been filed in state and
federal courts across the U.S. and in foreign tribunals, as well
as in arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA) and other arbitration associations.

In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, Citigroup
continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests
for information from the SEC, FINRA, state attorneys general, the
Department of Justice and subdivisions thereof, bank regulators,
and other government agencies and authorities, in connection with
various formal and informal (and, in many instances, industry-
wide) inquiries concerning Citigroup's mortgage-related conduct
and business activities, as well as other business activities
affected by the credit crisis.  These business activities include,
but are not limited to, Citigroup's sponsorship, packaging,
issuance, marketing, servicing and underwriting of CDOs and MBS,
and its origination, sale or other transfer, servicing, and
foreclosure of residential mortgages.

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: Sept. 12 Hearing on Accord in Interchange Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing for the approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated lawsuit over card interchange fees is scheduled for
September 12, 2013, according to Citigroup Inc.'s March 1, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current
and former officers, directors and employees (collectively
referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties), together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases
in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE
FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things,
that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of
interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card
transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes.  The
Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of classes of U.S. merchants, treble
damages, including all interchange fees paid to all Visa and
MasterCard members with respect to Visa and MasterCard
transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1, 2004, as well
as injunctive relief.  Supplemental complaints have also been
filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging
that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings
were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act,
and that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a
fraudulent conveyance.

On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions,
including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material terms of a class
settlement.  The class settlement contemplated by the MOU provides
for, among other things, a total payment by all defendants to the
class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the
damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange
collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard
networks; changes to certain network rules that would permit
merchants to surcharge some payment card transactions subject to
certain limitations and conditions, including disclosure to
consumers at the point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the
defendants.  Subsequently, all defendants and certain of the
plaintiffs who had entered into the MOU executed a settlement
agreement consistent with the terms of the MOU.

On November 27, 2012, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements and
provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only.
The court scheduled a final approval hearing for September 12,
2013.  Several large merchants and associations have stated
publicly that they intend to object to or opt out of the
settlement, and have appealed from the court's preliminary
approval of the proposed class settlements.

Visa and MasterCard have also entered into a settlement agreement
with merchants that filed individual, non-class actions.  While
Citigroup and Related Parties are not parties to the individual
merchant non-class settlement agreement, they are contributing to
that settlement, and the agreement provides for a release of
claims against Citigroup and Related Parties.

Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL
05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.).

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: April 8 Hearing on Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on Citigroup Inc.'s $590 million settlement of
the consolidated securities litigation in New York is scheduled
for April 8, 2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in November 2007, Citigroup, its affiliates and
subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and
employees (collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related
Parties) were named as defendants in a variety of class action and
individual securities lawsuits filed by investors in Citigroup's
equity and debt securities in state and federal courts relating to
the Company's disclosures regarding its exposure to subprime-
related assets.

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in the
consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004, through January
15, 2009.  On November 9, 2010, the court issued an opinion and
order dismissing all claims except those arising out of
Citigroup's exposure to CDOs for the time period February 1, 2007,
through April 18, 2008.  On August 30, 2012, the court entered an
order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement,
pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $590 million in exchange for
a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement
class.  A fairness hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2013.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket
number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).

The history of Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/--
dates back to the founding of Citibank in 1812.  New York-based
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad range of financial
products and services, including consumer banking and credit,
corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
transaction services and wealth management.


CITIGROUP INC: Class Action Attorneys Allegedly Inflate Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
plaintiff's lawyers in the Citigroup Inc. securities litigation
case are trying to inflate the price of temporary attorneys nearly
five to nine times the actual cost, according to William Ruane, a
former associate general counsel for litigation at Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals Inc.

"The market value for the services provided by temporary attorneys
. . . is, at most, in the $50-$75 range," Mr. Ruane said in a
declaration earlier this month in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan.

But plaintiff law firm Kirby McInerney is seeking $275 to $550 per
hour for such services, according to court documents, justifying
the upcharge in part because the law firm trained and supervised
the temps.  In total, the law firm is seeking 16.5 percent of the
$590 million settlement in legal fees for the class action case.

"It's outrageous," Mr. Ruane told CorpCounsel.com on March 29.
"There are a lot of inefficiencies in the hourly billing system.
And the whole trend for the past 10 years or longer for clients
who pay for their own legal work is to reduce the cost of that."

But the law firm used a so-called lodestar multiplier method,
which computes fees by multiplying the number of hours reasonably
spent by counsel times a reasonable hourly rate.  The figure can
be adjusted for other multipliers, such as the contingency risk
taken by counsel and the quality of the work done.

"Let's make believe [the temporary lawyer is] the same as a $500
associate -- that's what the lodestar multiplier is really about,"
Mr. Ruane claimed.

The former in-house counsel, who headed Wyeth's litigation efforts
for 20 years, didn't discuss the settlement amount in his filing.
But on the fee amount, he wrote, "I certainly never permitted, and
I am not aware of any other client who has permitted, outside
counsel to inflate that cost by a multiple of 4.5 to 9 solely
because the temporary attorneys had been trained and supervised."

He said the plaintiff's firms were asking rates consistent in
retaining New York law firms with "permanent, partner-track
associates, not for temporary attorneys."  He cited charges for
one temporary attorney as especially egregious: A lawyer who spent
one month, about 239 hours, reading and digesting one deposition
transcript, Mr. Ruane noted.

"Even at one of the lower temporary rates ($375 per hour), the
project resulted in an asserted lodestar of almost $90,000,"
Mr. Ruane said.  "I submit that it is difficult to justify a
$90,000 deposition digest . . . The actual cost of the time that
allegedly went into the digest was probably closer to $15,000."

Mr. Ruane was a witness for attorney Theodore Frank, of the Center
for Class Action Fairness, who is also a member of the class as a
Citigroup shareholder.  Mr. Frank has objected not only to the
allegedly inflated contract attorney fees, but also to the total
fee amount and to the settlement amount.

"It is indisputable that class counsel's proposed billing rate for
the contract attorneys is inflated six- to tenfold," Mr. Frank
said in his court filing.

"I don't think this is a unique case," Mr. Frank told
CorpCounsel.com on March 29.  "This is happening in a lot of
securities cases. And I think pension funds, mutual funds, and
hedge funds should actually hire someone on a contingency basis to
scrutinize these fee requests."

Mr. Frank has made it his life's work to oppose padded fees, and
has filed objections in about two dozen cases over the years.  He
told the court he has been successful in about 18 of those cases.

"Like most lawyers, I became a lawyer to correct injustice,"
Mr. Frank said in an interview.  "No one else is doing this, and I
saw a need.  They are taking money from innocent shareholders --
tens of millions of dollars.  It's the rich raiding the pensions
of the middle class."

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein has set a settlement fairness
hearing on April 8 to discuss the amounts at issue in the
Citigroup case.

The Association of Corporate Counsel has also objected to the
legal fees in an amicus letter sent to the judge.  The case is one
of several in which courts are being asked to more closely
scrutinize attorney fee requests.

But in its response to the objectors, the Kirby McInerney law firm
has defended its fees as reasonable and customary in the industry.

Peter Linden, a Kirby McInerney partner involved in the case,
defended the firm's use of contract attorneys in a recent
interview with Forbes, saying, "Not only has the practice been
endorsed by numerous courts, but it has allowed for more efficient
prosecution of the case."

The law firm also presented a court filing from its own expert,
professor Geoffrey Miller, of the New York University Law School
and a former in-house lawyer in the U.S. Department of Justice's
Office of Legal Counsel.

Mr. Miller said in the filing that he analyzed the settlement and
found it "represents excellent value for the class."  He
determined the fee request of 16.5 percent of the settlement
amount to be "within the ordinary range for percentage fee
awards."

The rates are necessary, Mr. Miller argued, in order to properly
compensate counsel "and to incentivize attorneys to bring similar
cases in the future."

The professor went on, "The rates charged by counsel are
commensurate with those charged by attorneys with similar
expertise and qualifications in New York and around the country."

Mr. Frank disagreed, saying that Mr. Miller was working on the
false premise that the rates charged were for Kirby McInerney
attorneys and not for contract lawyers.

As for the law firm's argument that other courts have allowed such
rate markups, Mr. Frank countered: " 'Everybody's doing it' --
that's their defense?" he asked.  "If that's so, then it's a
problem that could reach into billions of dollars."


COLLEGIATE LICENSING: Insurers Can't Intervene in Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that insurers
implicated in multiple class actions over the image rights of
college athletes cannot intervene in a California lawsuit against
Collegiate Licensing Co., the 11th Circuit ruled.

Collegiate Licensing, or CLC, is a trademark licensing and
marketing agent for the National Collegiate Athletic Association
and more than 200 colleges and universities.  Its licensees sell
NCAA football- and basketball-related video games that use
licensed trademarks, logos and college colors.

Beginning in 2009, several class action lawsuits, most of which
were filed in California, alleged that CLC, its licensee
Electronic Arts Inc., and the NCAA had cheated student-athletes
out of their right to profit from their own images and likenesses
in video games and other materials.

CLC sought coverage from American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa.,
and three other insurance companies, whose policies provided
defense and indemnity coverage in lawsuits alleging "personal and
advertising injury."  It also sought coverage, as an additional
insured, from National Union Fire Insurance Co., a company that
insured Electronic Arts in California.

National Union filed an October 2011 federal complaint against
Electronic Arts and CLC in California to determine its defense
obligations in the underlying lawsuits.

After American Casualty and CLC's other direct insurers imposed
restrictions that CLC viewed as unreasonable, CLC also filed suit
in the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaration that
the insurers were obligated to defend it in the California
lawsuits.

The insurance companies sought to intervene in National Union's
California action and to file intervention complaints, but CLC
asked the Georgia district court to enjoin their intervention,
arguing that its Georgia lawsuit had been filed first.

Before the Georgia court ruled on the issue, the Northern District
of California allowed the insurers to intervene and to file
intervention complaints, finding that they sought the same
declaratory relief as National Union.  The California court found
the motions to intervene timely, because the lawsuit was still in
its early stages, but it remained silent on the first-filed issue.

In December 2011, the Georgia district court enjoined the
insurers' intervention and ordered them to dismiss their
intervention complaints.  The court found that CLC's lawsuit
before it was filed first, because National Union's action, the
earliest action from a chronological standpoint, did not overlap
with CLC's Georgia lawsuit.

The insurers appealed, arguing that the Georgia court had erred in
its application of the first-filed rule, and that it had abused
its discretion in overruling the California court's order.

The 11th Circuit upheld the Georgia court's decision last week,
finding that it was correct in ruling that CLC's lawsuit could be
compared only with the insurers' intervention complaints, which
came after the Georgia action.  The intervention complaints
involved the same parties, the same insurance policies and the
same legal issues as CLC's Georgia lawsuit, whereas National
Union's lawsuit did not, according to the March 21 ruling.

Though the California court correctly concluded that the insurers'
claims shared certain legal issues with National Union's action,
the two lawsuits involved different insurance companies and
policies issued by brokers in different states, the three-judge
panel found.

The appellate court rejected the insurance companies' argument
that the first-filed rule applies only to new complaints filed in
subsequent jurisdictions, and not to intervention complaints.

"A contrary rule would allow an end-run around the first-filed
rule any time permissive intervention might be allowed in a
different court," U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, sitting by
designation from Tampa, Fla., wrote for the court.  "Certainly, it
cannot be said that the Georgia district court committed legal
error or abused its discretion when it declined to permit such a
maneuver in the case before it."

The Georgia court had also properly rejected the anticipatory suit
exception to the first-filed rule because CLC was justified in
suing its primary insurers in Georgia, where it is headquartered,
regardless of the National Union lawsuit.

Since none of the parties or known witnesses are California
citizens, and many of the relevant documents are in Georgia, the
Georgia court is also the most convenient forum, according to the
ruling.

The insurers had argued that the Georgia district court had abused
its discretion in overruling a sister court, because the
California court had found their motions for intervention timely.

But the judges noted that the California court had never ruled on
the first-filed issue.

There is no indication that the Georgia court tried to interfere
with the jurisdiction of its sister court, which is "prohibited by
black letter law," according to the ruling.

On the contrary, both district courts did their best to avoid
infringing on each other's authority.  The California court
refrained from ruling on the first-filed issue, while the Georgia
court directed its order to the insurers, not to its sister court,
the ruling adds.


COMCAST CORP: Cato Institute Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Olson at Cato Institute reports that confirming the pattern
of 2011's Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the issue of class action procedure
continues to generate a sharp 5-4 ideological split at the Supreme
Court.  On March 27, replicating the general Dukes line-up, the
Court's five conservatives ruled against certifying a large
antitrust class action against Comcast over its conduct in the
Philadelphia cable market, finding that the plaintiffs' model of
economic damages did not suffice to justify handling the case as a
class action.  The trial court had knocked out three of the
plaintiffs' four theories of recovery; the majority found the
plaintiffs' economic model did not distinguish among the theories
in such a way as to enable a court to recognize distinct damages
attributable to the surviving theory.

Despite protest from a few pro-antitrust commentators and sweeping
claims of victory by a few on the defense side, Comcast is most
likely to be remembered as a relatively narrow ruling with limited
impact on future cases, for reasons Andrew Longstreth explains at
Reuters.  Some plaintiffs will need to be a bit more careful in
constructing their cases, but the differences won't be major.
Indeed, the dissenters, led by Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer, describe the majority's ruling as "good for this day and
case only."

The Cato Institute had entered the fray with an amicus brief
arguing the following:

   1. Courts must engage in a rigorous analysis at the
certification stage rather than wave plaintiffs through the gate,
even when such an inquiry overlaps with questions of merits that
go to the case's ultimate substantive resolution.

    2. In particular, expert reports at the certification stage
should be subject to Daubert tests of admissibility, as they are
at the merits stage.

The majority opinion emphatically agreed with us on the first
point and the dissent did not make any real attempt to challenge
it.  That suggests that a sound view of this question may command
a broad or even unanimous consensus on the Court.

To many participants' surprise, the Court never reached the second
point about admissibility, instead proceeding to rule on questions
of predominance.  This led to a sharp protest from the four
dissenters that the majority was reaching out to decide the case
on a different ground than it had been briefed on.

"Few doubt that we can expect more wrangling at the Court on class
action standards.  That could soon happen in its consideration of
a Sixth Circuit washing-machine case called Whirlpool v. Glazer,
discussed by Ted Frank," Mr. Olson said.


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Defends Securities Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Deckers Outdoor Corporation is defending a securities class action
lawsuit pending in Delaware, according to the Company's March 1,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On May 31, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company and certain of its officers.  On
August 1, 2012, a similar purported shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its
officers.  These actions are purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between
October 27, 2011, and April 26, 2012.  The Plaintiffs in both
complaints allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  The California case has been dismissed with
prejudice; the Delaware action remains pending.

The Company believes the claim in the Delaware complaint is
without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.  While
the Company believes there is no legal basis for liability, due to
the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this
time.

Goleta, California-based Deckers Outdoor Corporation --
http://www.deckers.com/-- was incorporated in 1975 in California
and, in 1993, reincorporated in Delaware.  The Company designs and
markets innovative, functional and fashion-oriented footwear
developed for both high performance outdoor activities and
everyday casual lifestyle use.


FIRST INTERSTATE: Still Awaits OK of Visa Interchange Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. is still awaiting court approval
of a proposed settlement of the Visa Interchange Litigation,
according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and U.S. financial institution
defendants signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a
settlement agreement to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging
collusion between the defendant banks and the credit card
companies to maintain higher credit card interchange fees.  Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, class merchants may receive
a distribution equal to 10 basis points of default interchange for
a period of eight months, which would effectively reduce
interchange fees received by credit card issuers, like the
Company, during that time.  Based on current transaction volumes,
a 10 basis point reduction in credit interchange fees would not
have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements, results of operations or liquidity.  The proposed
settlement agreement was submitted for preliminary federal court
approval on October 19, 2012.  Assuming the proposed settlement
agreement is approved, the eight-month reduction in interchange
fees could begin in late 2013.

First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. -- http://www.FIBK.com/-- is a
financial and bank holding company incorporated as a Montana
corporation in 1971, and is headquartered in Billings, Montana.
The Company also offers Internet and mobile banking services.


GARDNER DENVER: Being Sold to Kohlberg for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gardner Denver (engineering
products) is selling itself through an unfair process to Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts for $3.7 billion or $76 a share, though it received
an offer of $85 a share, shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal From Dismissal of ARS Suits Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of two complaints brought on behalf
of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities remains
pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s March 1,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 4, 2008, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.)
was named as a defendant, together with numerous other financial
services firms, in two complaints filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities
market in violation of federal antitrust laws.  The actions were
filed, respectively, on behalf of putative classes of issuers of
and investors in auction rate securities and seek, among other
things, treble damages in an unspecified amount.  The Defendants'
motion to dismiss was granted on January 26, 2010.  On March 1,
2010, the plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their
complaints.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Decisions in MF Global Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on the
defendants' motions to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit
related to two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd., 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.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in class action complaints filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing
November 18, 2011.  These complaints generally allege that the
offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd.
convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in
principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other
things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and risks
of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation
of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.  On
August 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint and on October 19, 2012, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint.  GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate
principal amount of approximately $214 million of the notes.

On October 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and
regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning
certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy
filing.  Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Okay of Accord in NYSE Specialist Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving purported class action lawsuits related to
NYSE floor specialist activities, 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.

Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg,
L.P. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) are among
numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought
beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in
connection with New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) floor specialist
activities.  On October 24, 2012, the parties entered into a
definitive settlement agreement, subject to court approval.  The
Company has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution
to the settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in Hudson Mezzanine Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in a class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of investors of Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2,
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 September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(Group Inc.) and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) (Hudson Mezzanine
2006-1 and 2006-2).  The complaint, which was amended on February
4, 2011, asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and
seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.  The
defendants moved to dismiss on April 5, 2011, and the motion was
granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied
as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated
March 21, 2012.  On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed
for breach of contract and fraud.  On December 17, 2012, the
plaintiff moved for class certification.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in RALI Pass-Thru Certificates Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the
defendants' petition seeking leave to appeal an order modifying
the class definition in the RALI Pass-Through Certificates
Litigation, 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.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in a putative securities class action initially
filed in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege
that the offering documents in connection with various offerings
of mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.  In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Residential
Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI),
Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding
Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and
directors.  On March 31, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss
was granted in part and denied in part by the district court,
resulting in dismissal on the basis of standing of all claims
relating to offerings in which no plaintiff purchased securities
and, by an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court denied,
without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

In June and July 2010, the lead plaintiff and five additional
investors moved to intervene in order to assert claims based on
additional offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.).  On
April 28, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as
to certain of these claims (including those relating to one
offering underwritten by GS&Co. based on a release in an unrelated
settlement), but otherwise permitted the intervenor case to
proceed.

By an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss certain of the intervenors'
remaining claims as time barred.  Class certification of the
claims based on the pre-intervention offerings was initially
denied by the district court, and that denial was upheld on
appeal; however, following remand, on October 15, 2012, the
district court certified a class in connection with the pre-
intervention offerings.  On November 5, 2012, the defendants filed
a petition seeking leave from the U.S. Court of Appeals to appeal
the certification order.

By an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court granted the
plaintiffs' application to modify the class definition to include
initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from the
underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days after
the offering date (rather than just on the offering date).  On
January 18, 2013, the defendants filed a supplemental petition
seeking leave from the U.S. Court of Appeals to appeal the order
modifying the class definition.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $1.28 billion principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings for which claims
have not been dismissed.  On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York and the action has been stayed
with respect to them, RFSC and certain of their officers and
directors.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit alleging they
discriminated against female employees, 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 September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
former female employees alleging that The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. (Group Inc.) and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations.  The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.  The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.  Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion
to stay the claims of one of the named plaintiffs and to compel
individual arbitration with that individual, based on an
arbitration provision contained in an employment agreement between
Group Inc. and the individual.  On April 28, 2011, the magistrate
judge to whom the district judge assigned the motion denied the
motion, and the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's
decision on November 15, 2011.  Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  On June 13, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike
the class allegations of one of the three named plaintiffs based
on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On September 29, 2011, the magistrate judge recommended denial of
the motion to strike and, on January 10, 2012, the district court
denied the motion to strike.  On July 22, 2011, Group Inc. and
GS&Co. moved to strike all of the plaintiffs' class allegations,
and for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs' disparate
impact claims.  By a decision dated January 19, 2012, the
magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion be denied as
premature.  The defendants filed objections to that recommendation
with the district judge and on July 17, 2012, the district court
issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s
motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that
plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies
and denying in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike
plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary
against the IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Litigation,
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.

The Company's principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2009, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  As to
the underwriters, the plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various securitizations of mortgage-
related assets violated the disclosure requirements of the federal
securities laws.  The defendants include IndyMac-related entities
formed in connection with the securitizations, the underwriters of
the offerings, certain ratings agencies which evaluated the credit
quality of the securities, and certain former officers and
directors of IndyMac affiliates.

On November 2, 2009, the underwriters moved to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion was granted in part on February 17, 2010,
to the extent of dismissing claims based on offerings in which no
plaintiff purchased, and the court reserved judgment as to the
other aspects of the motion.  By a decision dated June 21, 2010,
the district court formally dismissed all claims relating to
offerings in which no named plaintiff purchased certificates
(including all offerings underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted
and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss in various other
respects.

On November 16, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion seeking reinstatement of claims relating to 42 offerings
previously dismissed for lack of standing (one of which was co-
underwritten by GS&Co.) without prejudice to renewal depending on
the outcome of the petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court with respect to the Second Circuit's decision.  On
May 17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking to
intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings
(including two underwritten by GS&Co.).  The defendants opposed
the motion on the ground that the putative intervenors' claims
were time-barred and, on June 21, 2011, the court denied the
motion to intervene with respect to, among others, the claims
based on the offerings underwritten by GS&Co.  Certain of the
putative intervenors (including those seeking to assert claims
based on two offerings underwritten by GS&Co.) have appealed.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May
2010 motion to intervene.

On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank was placed under an FDIC
receivership, and on July 31, 2008, IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. filed
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los
Angeles, California.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Mortgage Certificates-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is defending its subsidiaries from
two class action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of
various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates issued by various securitization trusts established
by the Company and underwritten by a subsidiary, according to the
Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
(GSMC) and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current
or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative
class action commenced on December 11, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of
purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and
asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts
established by the Company and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007.
The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement
and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and rescission or rescissionary damages.  Following
dismissals of certain of the plaintiff's claims under the initial
and three amended complaints, on May 5, 2011, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for entry of a final judgment dismissing all
its claims, thereby allowing plaintiff to appeal.  The plaintiff
appealed from the dismissal with respect to all 17 of the
offerings included in its original complaint.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the offerings included in
plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings.  On October 26, 2012, the defendants filed a petition
for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Second Circuit decision.  On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff
served defendants with a fourth amended complaint relating to
those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings.

On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought
to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action
asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one of the
offerings included in the initial plaintiff's complaint.  The
district court twice granted defendants' motions to dismiss this
separate action, both times with leave to replead.  On July 9,
2012, that separate plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss on September 21, 2012.  On
December 26, 2012, that separate plaintiff filed a motion to amend
the second amended complaint to add claims with respect to two
additional offerings included in the initial plaintiff's
complaint.

The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,
approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all
purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue in the complaints.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over "Force-Placed" Hazard Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in
New York related to "force-placed" hazard insurance, 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.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Litton Loan Servicing
LP and Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen) are defendants in a
putative class action filed on January 23, 2013, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York generally
challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed"
hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to
arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages.  The
complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment
and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Fannie Mae-Related Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s principal U.S. broker-dealer,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) was added as a defendant in an
amended complaint filed on August 14, 2006 in, a purported class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  The complaint asserts violations of the federal
securities laws generally arising from allegations concerning
Fannie Mae's accounting practices in connection with certain
Fannie Mae-sponsored REMIC transactions that were allegedly
arranged by GS&Co.  The complaint does not specify a dollar amount
of damages.  The other defendants include Fannie Mae, certain of
its past and present officers and directors, and accountants.  By
a decision dated May 8, 2007, the district court granted GS&Co.'s
motion to dismiss the claim against it.  The time for an appeal
will not begin to run until disposition of the claims against
other defendants.  A motion to stay the action filed by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which took control of the
action following Fannie Mae's conservatorship, was denied on
November 14, 2011.

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.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Challenging CDO Disclosure Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit challenging the adequacy
of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s public disclosure of its
activities in the collateralized debt obligation market remains
pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 16, 2010, the SEC brought an action (SEC Action) under
the U.S. federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company's principal
U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Fabrice
Tourre, a former employee, in connection with a collateralized
debt obligation (CDO) offering made in early 2007 (ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction), alleging that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements to investors and seeking, among other
things, unspecified monetary penalties.  Investigations of GS&Co.
by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) and of
Goldman Sachs International (GSI) by the Financial Services
Authority (FSA) were subsequently initiated, and Group Inc. and
certain of its affiliates have received subpoenas and requests for
information from other regulators, regarding CDO offerings,
including the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, and related matters.

Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s (Group Inc.'s) public disclosure of,
among other things, the Company's activities in the CDO market and
the SEC investigation that led to the SEC Action.  The purported
class action complaints, which name as defendants Group Inc. and
certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates,
have been consolidated, generally allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 25,
2011.

On October 6, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss, and by a
decision dated June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the
claims based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a
"Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS
2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims
to proceed.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Municipal Securities Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
One lawsuit over transactions involving municipal securities
remains pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) and certain of its
affiliates are subject to a number of investigations and reviews
by various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory
organizations relating to transactions involving municipal
securities, including wall-cross procedures and conflict of
interest disclosure with respect to state and municipal clients,
the trading and structuring of municipal derivative instruments in
connection with municipal offerings, political contribution rules,
underwriting of Build America Bonds and the possible impact of
credit default swap transactions on municipal issuers.  Goldman
Sachs is cooperating with the investigations and reviews.

Group Inc., Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivative Products, L.P.
(GSMMDP) and Goldman Sachs Bank USA (GS Bank USA) are among
numerous financial services firms that have been named as
defendants in numerous substantially identical individual
antitrust actions filed beginning on November 12, 2009, that have
been coordinated with related antitrust class action litigation
and individual actions, in which no Goldman Sachs affiliate is
named, for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs include
individual California municipal entities and three New York non-
profit entities.  All of these complaints against Group Inc.,
GSMMDP and GS Bank USA generally allege that the Goldman Sachs
defendants participated in a conspiracy to arrange bids, fix
prices and divide up the market for derivatives used by
municipalities in refinancing and hedging transactions from 1992
to 2008.  The complaints assert claims under the federal antitrust
laws and either California's Cartwright Act or New York's Donnelly
Act, and seek, among other things, treble damages under the
antitrust laws in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.  On
April 26, 2010, the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss
complaints filed by several individual California municipal
plaintiffs was denied.  On August 19, 2011, Group Inc., GSMMDP and
GS Bank USA were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from all
actions except one brought by a California municipal entity.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Time to Appeal Settlement Approval Has Expired
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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, the time has expired for any
appeal from the approval of its settlement of a 2009 class action
lawsuit brought on behalf purchasers of various mortgage pass-
through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by
various securitization trusts established by the Company and
underwritten by a subsidiary.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. (GSMSC) are among the defendants in a separate
putative class action commenced on February 6, 2009, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on
behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates
and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization
trusts established by the Company and underwritten by GS&Co. in
2006.  The other original defendants include three current or
former Goldman Sachs employees and various rating agencies.  The
second amended complaint generally alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated
the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
and rescissionary damages.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  On January 12, 2011, the district court
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to offerings in which
plaintiff had not purchased securities as well as all claims
against the rating agencies, but denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to a single offering in which the plaintiff allegedly
purchased securities.  These trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,
approximately $698 million principal amount of certificates to all
purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaint (excluding
those offerings for which the claims have been dismissed).  On
February 2, 2012, the district court granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification and on June 13, 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted defendants'
petition to review that ruling.

On November 8, 2012, the court approved a settlement between the
parties, and GS&Co. has paid the full amount of the settlement
into an escrow account.  The time for any appeal from the approval
of the settlement has expired.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Goldman
Sachs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.


GOLIVE! MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GoLive! Mobile dba SJA
Mobile, and Airpush defraud wireless phone customers by cramming,
a class action claims in Cook County Court.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Over Underpayment of Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to defend
itself against lawsuits alleging underpayment of claims and
improper underwriting practices, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions,
some of which assert claims for substantial amounts.  These
actions include, among others, putative state and federal class
actions seeking certification of a state or national class.  Such
putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of
claims or improper underwriting practices in connection with
various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and
commercial automobile, property, disability, life and inland
marine.  The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in
which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad
faith in the handling of insurance claims or other allegedly
unfair or improper business practices.  Like many other insurers,
The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos
plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty
to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that
insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on
behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases.
Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with
respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made
for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated
financial condition of The Hartford.  Nonetheless, given the large
or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and
the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in
certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows in
particular quarterly or annual periods.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
investment products and life and property and casualty insurance
to both individual and business customers in the United States of
America.  The Company is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.


HAIER AMERICA: Recalls Additional 41,000 Chest Freezers
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Haier America Trading LLC, of New York, announced a voluntary
recall of about 41,000 Chest Freezers (67,500 additional freezers
were recalled in November 2010).  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A capacitor in the freezer's circuitry can overheat, posing a fire
hazard.

In addition to the 18 incidents reported in the November 2010
recall, which included four reports of fires with minor property
damage, Haier America and CPSC have received 27 additional
incident reports.  This includes three fires that caused
substantial property damage.  There have been no reports of
injuries.

This recall involves the Haier(R) models HNCM070E with 7.0 cubic
foot capacity and ESNCM053E with 5.3 cubic foot capacity, and
Black & Decker(R) model BFE53 with 5.3 cubic foot capacity white
chest freezers.  "Haier" is printed on the upper-left corner of
the freezer, or "Black & Decker" is printed on the front upper-
right corner of the freezer.  "Haier" or "Black & Decker," the
model number, the unit's serial number and other information are
printed on a rating label at the top center of the back of the
freezer.  The recalled Black & Decker model BFE53 freezer also has
a label adjacent to the rating label with the UPC number
896603002660 printed on it.

Freezers with serial numbers beginning with the following numbers
are recalled:

                                   Black & Decker
    Haier Model    Haier Model     Model BFE53 w/
      HNCM070E      ESNCM053E      UPC896603002660
    -----------    -----------     ---------------
    0907   1001    0907   1001     0907        1001
    0908   1002    0908   1002     0908        1002
    0909   1003    0909   1003     0909        1003
    0910   1004    0910   1004     0910        1004
    0911           0911   1005     0911        1005
    0912           0912   1006     0912        1006
                          1007                 1007

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  Haier model
HNCM070E was sold by regional and local retailers nationwide and
online at Amazon.com, Walmart.com and other online retailers from
September 2009 through October 2011 for between $180 and $200.
Haier model ESNCM053E was sold primarily on Amazon.com and other
online retailers from February 2010 through March 2013 for between
$200 and $290.  The Black & Decker model BFE53 was sold
exclusively at Walmart nationwide and at Walmart.com from
September 2009 through September 2010, for about $150.

Consumers should immediately unplug their freezer and contact the
company to schedule an appointment for a free repair to the
freezer.  Haier America may be reached toll-free at (877) 878-7579
from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time any day, or online at
http://www.haieramerica.com/and click on Product Recalls for more
information.


INTUIT INC: Inks Agreement to Settle TurboTax-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to settle two
class action lawsuits related to its TurboTax income tax
preparation software, according to the Company's March 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

On January 13, 2012, two putative class actions were filed against
Intuit Inc. in connection with its TurboTax income tax preparation
software: Smith v. Intuit Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California) and Quildon v. Intuit Inc. (California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County).  The plaintiffs in both cases
had asserted that the fees charged for the refund processing
service offered within TurboTax are "refund anticipation loans"
and the disclosures about those fees do not comply with California
and federal laws.  The Smith case was brought in federal court on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon
case was brought in state court on behalf of a proposed California
class and subclasses.

In January 2013, for the purposes of settlement and without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, Intuit reached an agreement
in principle to resolve all claims raised in the Smith and Quildon
matters for an amount that is not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.  The Company accrued that
amount in the second quarter of fiscal 2013.  The terms of the
proposed settlement are subject to the approval of the court,
which could approve, reject, or suggest modifications to those
terms.

The Company currently believes that the likelihood of a material
change to the proposed settlement amount is remote.

Intuit Inc. provides business and financial management solutions
for small businesses, consumers, accounting professionals and
financial institutions.  Incorporated in 1984 and headquartered in
Mountain View, California, the Company sells its products and
services primarily in the United States.


ISRAEL: Gov't Agencies Face Class Action Over Unlawful Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yasmin Gueta, writing for Haaretz, reports that the state is
stealing millions from the public, claims lawyer launching class
action suit.  Tens of millions of shekels were collected illegally
from the public last year by government agencies such as the
Israel Broadcasting Authority, the Israel Lands Administration,
the Transportation Ministry and the Tel Aviv municipality.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Nixes Appeal on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
dismissed Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.'s appeal of a lower court's
approval of a $450 million settlement of a class action brought
against American International Group by members of the National
Workers Compensation Reinsurance Association.

On March 25, the majority noted that Liberty Mutual settled with
AIG after filing this appeal and that its dismissal will not harm
the other class members.  The majority was comprised of Chief
Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and Judge Daniel A. Manion.


LIVINGSOCIAL INC: Judge Trims Plaintiffs' Lawyers $3MM Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Flook, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that
a federal judge has trimmed the request by plaintiffs' lawyers for
$3 million in legal fees and costs as part of a settlement with
LivingSocial Inc., citing doubts "as to whether the litigation was
prosecuted in the most efficient manner possible."

D.C.-based LivingSocial agreed in October to pay more than $4
million to settle a bundle of six class-action lawsuits
challenging the expiration dates of its daily deals.

U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle has approved a $4.1
million settlement, but limited the fees to $1.35 million -- and
criticized the way the case was handled by the team of lawyers
representing the plaintiffs.

"Forty-six lawyers at twelve firms billed time to this case, and
at one of the two firms that served as lead class counsel, every
attorney in the firm -- seventeen in all -- billed time to this
litigation," Judge Huvelle wrote.  "At a minimum, this is a highly
inefficient way of doing business."

Coming on the heels of a similar challenge against rival Groupon
Inc., the LivingSocial case hinged on whether the often short time
frame the company gave consumers to redeem purchased deals
violated the federal CARD Act, which bars gift cards from expiring
within five years of their purchase, as well as some state
statutes.

So far, 26,830 valid claims have been submitted out of a possible
pool of 10.9 million LivingSocial customers, according to the
March 22 court filing.  Each is entitled to roughly $70 under the
settlement.

One plaintiff in the suit was represented by D.C.-based Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.


LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Plaintiff Balks at Class Action Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that a ticket holder
who launched a putative class action accusing the Los Angeles
Lakers of sending him unsolicited text messages on March 28 shot
back at the team's contention that he conspired with his attorneys
to frame the franchise, saying that he consulted with counsel only
after receiving the messages.  In his opposition to the Lakers'
dismissal bid, plaintiff David M. Emanuel objected to the team's
classification of the complaint alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a "classic example of a
lawyer-driven strike suit".


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Fails to Reverse Class Certification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina
judge on March 28 refused to decertify a long-running class action
over alleged defects in Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s TrimBoard
exterior siding products, saying the plaintiffs' warranty claims
do not require consideration of individual causation and damages
issues.  Judge Terrence W. Boyle rejected Louisiana-Pacific's
arguments that individualized and unique issues over causation and
damages predominate over common questions in the suit and make
class treatment inappropriate.


MCKESSON CORP: Propoxyphene Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDLE v. McKESSON CORPORATION is one of many pharmaceutical
product-liability actions currently pending in state courts
alleging injuries from the ingestion of propoxyphene. The
Plaintiffs allege 18 discrete state-law claims for relief against
some or all of the defendants.  The parties dispute when the
present action was filed and how many times it has been removed.
The Plaintiffs assert that it was filed in state court in October
2011 and that it was removed twice, while defendant Eli Lilly and
Company claims it was filed in state court in November 2012 and
that it was removed once.  The parties, however, do not dispute
that in October 2012, the Plaintiffs, along with others in the
similar actions, filed a motion for coordination before the
California Judicial Counsel.  In November 2012, the Defendants
removed the action on two grounds: (1) Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005; and (2) federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs now move to remand, arguing that neither basis was
sufficient for removal.

According to District Judge William Alsup, removal of an action
under CAFA is proper if it qualifies as a "mass action" with
monetary relief claims of 100 or more plaintiffs proposed to be
tried jointly on the grounds that their claims involve common
questions of law or fact.  The number of Plaintiffs in the action
-- three -- falls far short of 100. Instead, the Defendant points
to the language of the coordination petition and to non-binding
authority to argue that plaintiffs, by petitioning for
coordination, collectively qualify as a mass action under CAFA
since they number over 100 in the aggregate. Judge Alsup says he
disagrees with the Defendant.

The Defendant also cites decisions from both the Supreme Court and
our court of appeals which stand for the proposition that when
certain state claims turn on federal law, removal of an action to
federal court can be proper.  "This is, of course, an accurate
portrayal of when removal can generally be appropriate. But
defendant stretches these authorities too broadly to include the
instant action, which only involves whiffs of federal law," Judge
Alsup pointed out.  Our court of appeals has made clear that
"[t]he 'mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of
action does not automatically confer federal-question
jurisdiction,'" he added.

For these reasons, Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand and directed the Clerk of court to remand the action to the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

The case is JAMES BRANDLE, REBECCA GREGG, and DIANA GUTHRIE,
Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
AAIPHARMA, INC., AAIPHARMA LLC, AAI DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.,
NEOSAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
PROPST DISTRIBUTION, INC., BRENN DISTRIBUTION, INC., BRENN
MANUFACTURING, INC., VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, GENERICS
INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., GENERICS BIDCO I, LLC, GENERICS BIDCO
II, LLC, GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US PARENT), INC., ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS INC.,
CORNERSTONE BIOPHARMA, INC., CORNERSTONE BIOPHARMA HOLDINGS, INC.,
TEVA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC,
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN, INC, COVIDIEN PLC, COVIDIEN
INC., MALLINCKRODT INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ABLE
LABORATORIES, INC., ARISTOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. C 12-05970 WHA, (N.D.
Cal.).

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


METROLINK: July 29 Hearing on Identity Theft Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Metro, St.
Louis' main transit agency, has offered free rides to settle a
class action that claims it violated a federal law to prevent
identity theft.

A preliminary settlement agreement was filed in Federal Court.

The class claimed Metro violated the Fair and Accurate
Transactions Act when its vending machines printed receipts that
showed the last four digits of customers' credit card numbers,
between Jan. 21, 2010 and Aug. 16, 2011.

FACTA, passed in 2003, requires merchants to limit credit card
information on printed receipts.  Up to the last five digits of a
credit card or its expiration date may be printed, but not both.

In the settlement offer, Metro offered passengers who still have a
credit card receipt either $30 in cash, a monthly pass worth $72,
or two MetroLink 10-ride passes with a face value of $60.

For passengers who furnish a statement that they used a credit or
debit card during the class period, Metro offers three round-trip
tickets worth $13.50 total.

Passengers who do not have proof of payment but bought a ticket
during the class period with a credit or debit card would be asked
to sign a form, under penalty of perjury, stating they bought a
ticket, and would get a free ticket for one ride, worth $2.25.

Metro denies any wrongdoing in the settlement.

No passengers are known to have suffered identity theft as a
result of the receipts, according to the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig will decide whether to
approve the settlement after a hearing on July 29.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Wins Final OK of Accord in Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation 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 it received in November
2012 final approval of its settlement of a discrimination class
action lawsuit.

In October 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against MGIC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania by a loan applicant on whose behalf a now-settled
action the Company previously disclosed had been filed by the U.S.
Department of Justice.  In this lawsuit, the loan applicant
alleged that MGIC discriminated against her and certain proposed
class members on the basis of sex and familial status when MGIC
underwrote their loans for mortgage insurance.  In May 2011, the
District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with respect to
all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims.

On November 29, 2012, the District Court granted final approval
for a class action settlement of the lawsuit.  The settlement
created a settlement class of 265 borrowers.  Under the terms of
the settlement, MGIC deposited $500,000 into an escrow account to
fund possible payments to affected borrowers.  In addition, MGIC
paid the named plaintiff an "incentive fee" of $7,500 and paid
class counsels' fees of $337,500.  Any funds remaining in the
escrow account after payment of all claims approved under the
procedures established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation
-- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage
insurer.  In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage
loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders
with various underwriting and other services and products related
to home mortgage lending.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Nine RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nine lawsuits alleging that the captive mortgage reinsurance
arrangements of a subsidiary of MGIC Investment Corporation
violate provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
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.

Beginning in December 2011, Mortgage Guaranty Insurance
Corporation ("MGIC"), various mortgage lenders and various other
mortgage insurers have been named as defendants in twelve
lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S.
District Courts.  Three of those cases have previously been
dismissed; the last dismissal occurred on November 13, 2012, and
was of a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.  The complaints in all nine of the
remaining cases allege various causes of action related to the
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders,
including that the defendants violated Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA") by paying excessive premiums to the
lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that
captive.  MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits.  The
remaining cases are:

   Date Filed   Court
   ----------   -----
   12/09/2011   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Central District of CA
   12/31/2011   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA
   04/05/2012   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Western District of PA
   04/05/2012   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA
   05/18/2012   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA
   06/28/2012   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Middle District of PA
   10/03/2012   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Central District of CA
   12/06/2012   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Western District of PA
   01/04/2013   U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern District of PA

In June 2012, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand
("CID") from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB")
requiring additional information and documentation regarding
captive mortgage reinsurance.  The Company said it has met with,
and expects to continue to meet with, the CFPB to discuss the CID
and how to resolve its investigation.  MGIC has also filed a
petition to modify the CID which petition is currently pending.
While the Company believes it would have strong defenses to any
claims the CFPB might bring against it as a result of the
investigation, the Company continues to work with the CFPB to try
to resolve the investigation and any concerns that the CFPB may
have about MGIC's past and current captive reinsurance practices.
If the Company cannot resolve the concerns of the CFPB, it is
possible that the CFPB would assert various RESPA and possibly
other claims against the Company.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation
-- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage
insurer.  In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage
loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders
with various underwriting and other services and products related
to home mortgage lending.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Plea for Relief in C-BASS Suit Not Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation 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 the plaintiffs did not appeal
the denial of their motion for relief from the judgment dismissing
their consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its investment
in C-BASS.

Five previously filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") in June 2009.  Due in part to its length and
structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in
the Complaint but it appears the allegations were that the Company
and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned,
unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its
liquidity.  The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February
2010.  In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.  Attached to this motion was a proposed
Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named
in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The Amended
Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.

The Complaint was dismissed and the motion to file the Amended
Complaint was denied.  These decisions were affirmed by the
Appeals Court in April 2012.  In early July 2012, the plaintiffs
re-filed a motion with the District Court for relief from that
court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly discovered
evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of
testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its
now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS.  On October 3,
2012, the District Court denied the July 2012 motion and the
plaintiffs did not appeal.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation
-- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage
insurer.  In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage
loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders
with various underwriting and other services and products related
to home mortgage lending.


MIDWEST TRADING: Recalls 9,400 Remote-Controlled Helicopters
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Midwest Trading Group, Inc., Addison, Illinois, and
manufacturer, Ultimate Products (HK) Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced
a voluntary recall of about 9,400 Remote-Controlled Banshee 3
Channel helicopters.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rechargeable battery inside the helicopters can overheat and
ignite the helicopter, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers
or nearby items.

The firm has received one report of a helicopter overheating with
flames coming from the helicopter and one report of minor property
damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Radio Controlled Banshee Helicopter with
lights, series 3CH-777.  The series number is printed on the
product packaging.  The plastic helicopters were sold in black and
red or black and yellow color combinations and measure about 19
inches long and 6 inches high.  The helicopters have a rounded
front yellow cockpit with bee decals and a narrow black plastic
tail assembly.  They were sold with a remote-control unit and a
separate charger.  "Fly Dragonfly" and SKU #51727 are printed on
the product packaging.  "Date of Production: June 2011,"
"Manufacturer Ultimate Products (HK) Ltd.," and "Distributor MTG
Inc." is printed on a white label on the back of the helicopter
remote control.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://is.gd/sGVFOe

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace
Hardware, Alco, Discount Direct, Seen on Screen nationwide and VA
Canteen Service and online including PulseTV.com from October 2011
through November 2011 for between $40 and $50.

Consumers should stop using the remote-controlled helicopters
immediately and contact Midwest Trading Group for instructions on
receiving a full refund.  Midwest Trading Group may be reached
toll-free at (866) 815-4714 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.mtradinggroup.com/and click on the Recall page for
more information.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Awaits Class Cert. Ruling in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the consolidated securities
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
March 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court").  On September 17, 2008, a
second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v.
Hansen Natural Corp., et al., was also filed in the District
Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
(the "Consolidated Class Action Complaint").  The Consolidated
Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period
November 9, 2006, through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period").
It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H.
Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly.  The Plaintiff principally
alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution
coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its
sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of
shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public
information.  Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial
statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain
promotional expenses.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the
"Amended Class Action Complaint").  While similar in many respects
to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class
Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants.  In addition, it no longer
names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended Class Action
Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010.  At a hearing on defendants' motion
to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on
May 12, 2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling
granting the motion to dismiss as to certain of plaintiff's
claims, including plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional
expenses, but denying the motion to dismiss with regard to the
majority of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel
stuffing allegations.  On September 4, 2012, the District Court
issued a Notice of Ruling (the "Order") adopting the May 12, 2011
tentative ruling as its final ruling on defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On October 22, 2012, the District Court denied
defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Order or
certification of an interlocutory appeal from the Order.  The
District Court has set a schedule for briefing and discovery in
connection with plaintiff's motion for class certification, and
has scheduled a hearing on that motion on April 1, 2013.  Fact
discovery in the action has been stayed pending resolution of the
class certification motion.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible
litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be
estimated.  Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be
determined with certainty, the Company believes that the
allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without
merit.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit.

Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/--
was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of
business is located in Corona, California.  The Company is a
holding company and conducts no operating business except through
its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company develops, markets,
sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages
primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R),
Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and
Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R).


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Suits Alleging False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation is defending class action lawsuits
alleging false advertising, 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.

The Company has been named as defendant in various false
advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney
general action, each of which contains allegations similar to
those presented in the Wellman action.  In these actions,
plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and
advertised Monster Energy(R) brand products that allegedly were
ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not
limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as
advertised because they contain caffeine).  The plaintiffs further
allege that the Monster Energy(R) brand products at issue are
unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly
could result in illness, injury, or death.  In connection with
these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the
product labels did not provide adequate warnings, and/or that the
Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but
not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed
individually or in combination with other ingredients, could
result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage, or
other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves
are unsafe).

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair
competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment.  In their prayers for relief, the
plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive
relief.  Furthermore, the Company says it is subject to litigation
from time to time in the normal course of business, including
intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated
distributors.  Although it is not possible to predict the outcome
of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company,
management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will
likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.

Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/--
was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of
business is located in Corona, California.  The Company is a
holding company and conducts no operating business except through
its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company develops, markets,
sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages
primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R),
Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and
Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R).


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settlement in "Chavez" Suit Is Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation 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 has satisfied all
obligations required under its settlement of the class action
lawsuit commenced by Christopher Chavez, and, hence, the agreement
is now final.

In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky(R) beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled
wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  The Defendants removed this
Superior Court action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") under the
Class Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or
transfer.  On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice.

On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ("Ninth Circuit") filed a memorandum opinion reversing the
decision of the District Court and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion
for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification.  On June 18, 2010, the District
Court entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was
no preemption by federal law, and denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The class that the District Court certified initially
consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the
Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between
May 16, 2002, and June 30, 2006.

On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the
class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of
December 10, 2010.  On January 27, 2012, the parties entered into
a settlement agreement on terms acceptable to the Company.  On
June 1, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered judgment.  On June 26, 2012, an objector to
the settlement filed a notice appealing the District Court's
judgment with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 11,
2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order
dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to prosecute.
The settlement is, therefore, final and the Company has satisfied
all obligations required under the settlement agreement.

Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/--
was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of
business is located in Corona, California.  The Company is a
holding company and conducts no operating business except through
its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company develops, markets,
sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages
primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R),
Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and
Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R).


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Still Defends "Wellman" Class Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Monster Beverage Corporation and
its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants (the "Wellman Action").  The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R)
products in Canada by not including sufficiently specific
statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse
reactions associated with the consumption of the energy drink
products.  The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for
negligence, unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false
representations in violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the
Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002
(Ontario).  The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the
putative class in the amount of CAD$20 million, together with
punitive damages of CAD$5 million, plus legal costs and interest.
The plaintiff's certification motion materials have not yet been
filed.

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.

The Company believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position
or results of operations.  In accordance with class action
practices in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the
complaint until after the determination of the certification
motion.  The Company believes that the plaintiff's complaint is
without merit and plans a vigorous defense.

Monster Beverage Corporation -- http://www.monsterbevcorp.com/--
was incorporated in Delaware in 1990 and its principal place of
business is located in Corona, California.  The Company is a
holding company and conducts no operating business except through
its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company develops, markets,
sells and distributes "alternative" beverage category beverages
primarily under certain brand names, including Monster Energy(R),
Hansen's(R), Monster Rehab(R), Hansen's Natural Cane Soda(R), and
Monster Energy Extra Strength Nitrous Technology(R).


NBT BANCORP: Appeal From Overdraft Fees Suit's Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of NBT Bancorp Inc. 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.

NBT Bank, National Association, has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.
The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Delaware, on September 12, 2011, and alleges that
the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices and failed to make
adequate disclosure to customers concerning its overdraft fee
assessment practices.  The complaint seeks certification of a
class of national checking account holders who have incurred
overdraft fees and a subclass of such customers who reside in New
York.  In addition, the complaint seeks actual and punitive
damages, disgorgement, interest and costs including attorneys'
fees.  On May 15, 2012, Acting Supreme Court Judge for Delaware
County, New York, John F. Lambert, dismissed in its entirety the
plaintiff's case.  On June 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department.  The Company
believes the claims to be without merit and intends to defend the
action vigorously.

NBT Bancorp Inc. -- http://www.nbtbancorp.com/-- is a registered
financial holding company incorporated in Delaware in 1986, with
its principal headquarters located in Norwich, New York.  The
Company's principal assets consist of all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of its subsidiaries, including NBT Bank,
National Association, NBT Financial Services, Inc., NBT Holdings,
Inc., Hathaway Agency, Inc., and CNBF Capital Trust I, NBT
Statutory Trust I and NBT Statutory Trust II.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Takes Measures After Head Injury Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Chicago Tribune, a collision sport known for its
gladiator culture faces a legal reckoning that may force it to
change its very nature.

Big hits have made football the nation's No. 1 spectator sport.
They have made the National Football League a multibillion-dollar
profit machine.  Yet those big hits may prove to be football's
undoing.

The most important person to the future of football may be a
Columbia Law School graduate who works out of a federal courtroom
in Philadelphia.  Class-action lawsuits brought by hundreds of
current and former NFL players who say they've suffered football-
related brain injuries have been consolidated into a single case
under Senior U.S. District Judge Anita Brody.

The players say they suffered injuries not just from spectacular
hits.  They also point to degenerative brain disease caused by
"mild subconcussive impacts" -- more routine hits that occur in
practice as well as games.  Those hits can lead to disability and
death, the players say.

The most stunning claim: that the NFL conducted "a campaign of
disinformation" that covered up the dangers.  The NFL denies it
engaged in any cover-up and says that the league and players share
responsibility for the terms of employment through collective
bargaining agreements.

Did the NFL know for decades that players were at risk of
developing chronic brain disease? Does it face liability for not
changing rules of play to protect players?

The courts will determine whether the NFL has liability. Even if
the plaintiffs don't win here, though, it seems likely that
football, from the professional ranks to college and high school
and youth leagues, is in for major changes.  There's growing
evidence of the risks of cognitive impairment.

The NFL is evaluating a range of proposals: Ten days ago, the
league decided to penalize ball carriers or tacklers who lower
their heads to make contact with the crown of the helmet.
Depending on how it's enforced, that change could make a
noticeable difference in the way the game is played.  Previously,
the league moved up kickoffs so there are fewer open-field, head-
jarring hits on returns.  The protocol for concussions is getting
more strict.  Safer equipment could revolutionize football.

Imagine a helmet that measures and transmits in real time the
exact amount of force that a hit has delivered to a player's
brain.  If a certain threshold is breached, then the player could
be removed from the game immediately for medical evaluation --
taking the guesswork out of when intervention is needed.  That
helmet already is on the market, and in use in some programs below
the NFL level. It is but one example of change coming on fast.

The attention being paid to brain injuries is woefully overdue.
Recognizing the risks does not necessarily mean that football has
to be two-hand touch.  As the offseason gives way to the NFL draft
and summer training camp, all parties with a stake in football
should be mindful of the case before Judge Brody.  At a minimum,
the risks call for a review of basic rules and procedures for
treating injuries, as well as rapid adoption of new technology.

No one knows where this will take the game.  Football could go the
way of boxing, a once-popular sport that has become a sideshow
amid head-injury concerns.  Film and sports writer Budd Schulberg
once remarked, "As much as I love boxing, I hate it.  And as much
as I hate it, I love it."


NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Officers Forced to Fill Quotas, Trial Reveals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Gwynne, writing for AlterNet, reports that NYPD
whistleblowers Adhyl Polanco and Pedro Serrano, who secretly
recorded supervisors demanding that officers fill quotas,
testified in federal court that they were forced to violate the
law to meet numbers.  "We were handcuffing kids for no reason,"
Polanco testified.  The two officers are testifying in a class-
action suit targeting the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy.

Quotas for NYPD activity are illegal under New York labor law, but
secretly recorded roll calls reveal supervisors pushing officers
to get "20-and 1," meaning 20 summonses and 1 arrest per month.
Monthly quotas also required five "250s," or street stops.

"There's a difference between" the department's policies on paper
and "what goes on out there," in real life, Mr. Polanco told the
court.

The 40th Precinct, where Pedro Serrano serves, recorded the
highest number of police stops in the Bronx in 2011.  That year,
Serrano recorded the 40th Precinct's commanding officer, Deputy
Inspector Christopher McCormack, telling him to stop "the right
people at the right time, the right location," whom he also
identified as people creating "the most problems."

"The problem was, what, male blacks," Inspector McCormack said.
"And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you
this, male blacks 14 to 20, 21."

"We go out there and we summons," he told Serrano.

Mr. Polanco, who is Dominican and said he is from Washington
Heights, testified that he joined the case because, "I know what
it's like when it's 95 degrees in an apartment on the fifth floor
and you go downstairs because you had a fight with your sister,
because it's simply too hot, " he said, "and get arrested in your
own building for trespassing, as we have seen, get summons, get
pat down, get harassed by police -- I don't believe that's why I
joined the police department."

"As a Hispanic, walking in the Bronx, I have been stopped many
times.  It's not a good feeling," said Serrano, who grew up in the
Bronx and works in the 40th Precinct.

The class-action suit, Floyd v. City of New York, will ultimately
decide whether the city has systematically violated the 4th and
14th Amendments of New Yorkers via the NYPD's racial profiling
tactic stop-and-frisk.

Almost 90% of more than half-a-million people stopped annually by
the NYPD are black or Latino, and the majority of them are young
and living in low-income areas with higher violent crime rates.
Nonetheless, the arrests and summonses NYPD officers say they are
forced to make are typically for low-level, nonviolent offenses.
In one recording played for the court, an NYPD captain urging more
activity told officers, "the summons is a money-generating machine
for the city."

Police are legally allowed to stop individuals they have
"reasonable suspicion" to believe are committing a crime, and they
may then pat down a person if they observe a bulge that could be a
weapon.  But stops -- less than one percent of which uncover a
firearm -- also provide the initial interaction by which officers
might uncover an arrest warrant or issue a summons.

Messrs. Polanco and Serrano testified that supervisors cared more
about whether cops met the numbers than whether they met them
legally, and that failing to do so would lead to punishment or
"retaliation," which only intensified after they spoke out.  They
said they were advised to meet their quotas by going after young
men of color for crimes they may not even have committed.

"They will never question the quality.  They will question the
quantity.  They are not checking the 250.  They are not checking
the summonses.  They just want to make sure we have them. How we
got them, they don't really care," testified Mr. Polanco, who has
been suspended from the NYPD for three years.

Mr. Serrano, unlike previous NYPD whistleblowers Polanco and
Adrian Schoolcraft, whose recordings were also played to the
court, is remarkably still on the job with the 40th Precinct in
the Bronx.

Mr. Serrano stressed that the most important police work was of
the smallest concern to his bosses.  "Sometime we have to sit on a
dead body the whole day.  Sometime we have to bring a bad car
accident to the hospital, where people actually die on the way or
die at the hospital.  Sometime we get rapes with minors . . .
Sometime we get domestic dispute [that] sometimes turn deadly,"
said Mr. Serrano.

In a June 30, 2011 roll call recording for overtime Mr. Serrano
says he was "forced" into due to his failure to meet quotas,
Lieutenant Barrett says she is "looking for five," which Mr.
Serrano explained meant five criminal summonses.  She told
officers, who were serving "impact" overtime that targets high-
crime areas, to focus on a park in the 40th precinct.  "St. Mary's
Park, go crazy in there.  Go crazy in there.  I don't care if
everybody writes everything in there.  That's not a problem," she
said.

In a recording one month later, Mr. Serrano captured Lieutenant
Doute of the 40th Precinct demanding "five, five, and five" for
each officer on the shift.  Mr. Serrano explained that the numbers
are quotas for five C summonses, five vertical patrols through
buildings, and five 250s (stops).

"There's a lot of pressure on the sergeant to make sure that you
get your activity," said Mr. Serrano, who stressed that orders are
coming from the top of the city.  Lieutenants and sergeants, "They
have performance goals also.  So they are under high pressure to
make us [meet quotas]."

Mr. Serrano said that high C-summons activity appeases higher-ups
who want to see that high-crime areas are being policed.  "If
there is a crime spike concern area, they want the C summonses to
reflect the crime spike so they can say . . . that we addressed
the condition."

C summonses, or criminal misdemeanor summonses, require the person
ticketed to appear in criminal court, a task that can often take a
whole day, while the process itself can take months.  Kids given
C-summonses must miss a day of school to appear in court, and
their parents are often left to foot the bill.  Should they miss a
court date and be stopped, a warrant for their arrest will appear,
and they will be taken away handcuffed for failure to pay a now
more expensive ticket they may not have deserved in the first
place.  In areas where summonses are a frequent occurrence,
finding a sitter to watch children while you spend a day in court,
or falling behind on bills to pay a summons, is a regular part of
life.

"Addressing conditions" was a term regularly used in the trial,
both by whistleblowers and witnesses who defended quotas they
described as easily achievable "goals."  Should there be a high
volume of robberies in an area, for example, supervisors want to
see officers ticketing people in the area.  The strategy is part
of the "Broken Windows" theory of policing, which maintains that
low-level busts and tickets for street crimes will deter more
serious offenses.  Its efficacy has been hotly debated, and
refuted by academics who point to a variety of other factors that
decreased crime when the NYPD began implementing the policy in the
1990s.

Pedro Serrano also testified that supervisors prefer certain
summonses over others, noting that his bosses demand "hazardous"
summonses that come with a fine rather than "correctable"
summonses that allow the person to fix, for example, a busted
headlight before they must pay a fine.  In one recording, a
lieutenant tells Serrano he is not making the correct summonses.
The correct B summonses "are the ones that the city can make money
on," Serrano explained, not the ones "You'll be able to correct it
without financially coming out your pocket."

Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office in 2002, the number of
police stops has increased 600%, to well over half a million stops
annually in recent years.  Residents of low-income, black and
Latino neighborhoods complain that they are stopped almost daily,
and that the consequences of being targeted by police are severe
interruptions to their lives.

Both Messrs. Polanco and Serrano claimed supervisors retaliated
against them for not meeting quotas, and again after blowing the
whistle about their unlawful behavior.  Mr. Serrano says that
after he filed complaints about the NYPD's quotas and punishments
for failing to meet them, his locker was shaken and stickered with
rats.  Other punishments for failing to meet quotas include low
evaluations, denial of vacation days, separation from partners,
and undesirable assignments like forced overtime shifts with
additional quotas.  One particularly disturbing punishment was to
"drive the sergeant" or supervisor, which required the officer
whose numbers were low to drive around with a higher-up until he
or she found people for the patrol officer to stop, summons, or
arrest, often for crimes the officers said they never observed.

                          The Human Impact

Plaintiffs in the suit testified that unwarranted police stops are
embarrassing, degrading experiences that harm police relations
with the community.

Community activist and Harlem resident Nicholas Peart, 24,
testified that in April 2011, while he went to the deli to get
milk, he was stopped, searched and temporarily detained by police
officers.  Mr. Peart has been the primary caretaker for his three
siblings, one of whom is disabled, since his mother's death a year
ago.

He described to the court his sense of unease while one officer
walked toward his home with his keys, "mixed in with being
handcuffed for the first time, and in the back of a police car for
the first time."

"I have kids in the house.  I have kids in the house and there
wasn't anybody there," he said, explaining that he feared the
police might enter his home.

During a separate August 2007 stop on 96th and Broadway, when he
and friends were ordered to get on the ground by officers who drew
their guns, Mr. Peart testified that he felt embarrassed and
marginalized.  "They patted over my basketball shorts and I was
touched," Mr. Peart said, breaking down in tears.  In
neighborhoods across the city, young people have complained that
stop-and-frisks often become so invasive they involve an officer's
hand on the suspect's genitals.

Mr. Peart testified, "I felt criminalized.  My cousins, they had
been visiting me from the suburbs in the Poconos, and they had
never been through anything like that."

David Floyd, a plaintiff in the case, testified that in February
2008 he was stopped at his own building after retrieving a set of
keys he was fumbling with to help a neighbor enter the building.

"Before we could go in, we were stopped . . . It was again the
humiliation," Mr. Floyd said, adding that, this time, "it wasn't
down the block, it wasn't in another neighborhood. It was on the
property that I lived on."

"I felt that I was being told I shouldn't leave my home," he said,
"I'm not a criminal."

Mr. Polanco testified that the issue with forcing illegal stops
for quotas is targeting the wrong people.  "I have no problem
harassing criminals.  I have no problem harassing those that are
committing the crime or about to commit the crime," he said.

"My understanding is that when somebody commits a crime, you don't
bring the whole family to court.  So why should we hold the whole
culture accountable for what some of them are doing?" Mr. Polanco
said.

Mr. Serrano echoed his sentiments, breaking down when he told the
judge he was testifying, in part, on behalf of his children.  It
was an emotional moment that spoke to the severe psychological
effect quotas can have on police officers, and also on the
community being policed.  Mr. Serrano told the court, "I don't
need my kid to get shot by a cop who was chasing him to fill out a
250."


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Defends Four Product Liability Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. is defending itself against four class
action lawsuits alleging product liability 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.

The Company is currently a party to three purported state class
actions and one purported national Canadian class action.  The
cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an
affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government
safety standards.  The Company is vigorously defending all three
actions.

Founded in 1903 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Newell
Rubbermaid Inc. -- http://www.newellrubbermaid.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and markets consumer and commercial products.  The
Company operates in three segments: Home & Family, Office
Products, and Tools, Hardware & Commercial Products.


RICH PRODUCTS: FSIS Updates List of Stores With 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
    Food City          Stores in KY, TN and VA
    Harvey's           Stores in FL, GA and SC
    Ingles Markets     Stores in GA, NC, SC and TN
    Meijer             Stores in IL, IN, KY, MI and OH
    Price Chopper      Stores in KS and MO
    Stewart's Shops    Stores in NY and VT
    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
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Barbourville, Kentucky
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Pikeville, Kentucky
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Prestonsburg, Kentucky
    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
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Rogersville, Tennessee
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Abingdon, VA
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Grundy, VA
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Hillsville, Virginia
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Lynchburg, Virginia
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Vinton, Virginia
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Wytheville, Virginia
    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


SAN DIEGO HOSPICE: Sued for Mass Firings Without Notice
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that San Diego Hospice & Palliative Care Corp. was the
target of a class lawsuit filed at the end of last week on behalf
of 360 workers who were fired without 60 days' notice required by
federal and state labor law.

San Diego Hospice & Palliative Care Corporation filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. S.D. Calif. Case No. 13-01179) in San Diego on
February 4, 2013.  The Debtor is the operator of the San Diego
Hospice and The Institute for Palliative Medicine, one of the
largest community-owned, not-for-profit hospices in the country.

The Debtor scheduled $20,369,007 in total assets and $14,888,058
in total liabilities.

Even before the bankruptcy filing, the Debtor has been under a
federal investigation, focusing whether it allowed patients to
stay in the program even when their diagnosis changed.  The Debtor
said that it will meet with government agencies to address their
concerns, explore partnerships with other health care
organizations, and work to restructure and resize San Diego
Hospice.  The Debtor said it has encouraged Scripps Health, the
region's largest provider of health care services, to enter the
hospice business.

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP serves as counsel to the
Debtor.


SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Judge Balks at Coercive Tactics in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Becker, writing for Reuters, reports that a Southern
California warehouse operator used coercive and misleading tactics
when it interviewed employees about working conditions at issue in
a class action, a federal judge has ruled.

When attorneys representing Schneider Logistics, a Wal-Mart
contractor that operates three warehouses in Mira Loma,
California, interviewed the employees, they did not disclose that
the information could be used to bolster Schneider's defense in a
class action over alleged wage-and-hour violations, U.S. District
Judge Christina Snyder has ruled.

"While the deceptive nature of the interviews is sufficient to
support a finding that improper communications have taken place,
the Court also finds that the interviews were impermissibly
coercive," Judge Snyder wrote in minutes filed with the court.

A group of Schneider employees sued the company in March 2012 over
an alternative work-week arrangement, which they allege resulted
in unpaid overtime and other wage violations.  Shortly afterward,
employees were summoned for interviews in a manager's office and
told it was related to an "internal investigation" about working
conditions at Schneider.

At least 106 sworn declarations were collected from Schneider
employees after such meetings, court records show.

Judge Snyder noted that only five of the nearly 120 employees who
were summoned chose to leave the voluntary interviews.  And only
six employees declined to sign a written declaration at the end of
the interview process.  That suggested that the "interviewing
attorney's grant of permission to leave did little to dispel the
aura of coercion," Judge Snyder wrote.

California Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys
representing organizations not to mislead employees into thinking
that the information they share will not be used for the
employer's benefit should their interests diverge, Judge Snyder
noted.

                        Written Permission

Going forward, the court said, Schneider Logistics and its
attorneys are prohibited from communicating with potential class
members about the lawsuit without obtaining written permission
from the court.  The company will not be able to use the 106 sworn
declarations and potential class members will be notified that any
declarations they signed in the past will not be considered in the
case.

"We hope this will send a message to Schneider's employees that
they will not be retaliated against if they would like to provide
evidence," said Lauren Teukolsky of Traber and Voorhees, the firm
representing the employees.

Ms. Teukolsky said that after completing the discovery process in
the underlying lawsuit, the class will seek certification this
fall.

Douglas Farmer, one of the attorneys at Ogletree Deakins
representing Schneider Logistics, said that language on the
declarations signed by the employees stated that they could be a
"potential member of a class of individuals on whose behalf a
lawsuit has been brought," among other disclaimers.

"We respect the court's order and we fully intend to follow it,"
Mr. Farmer added.

The case is Franklin Quezada v. Schneider Logistics Transloading
and Distribution, U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, No. 12cv02188.

For Franklin Quezada: Lauren Teukolsky, Marisa Hernandez-Stern,
Rebecca Fisher and Theresa Traber of The Law Offices of Traber and
Voorhees.

For Schneider Logistics: Christopher Ahearn --
christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Douglas Farmer --
doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Jill Garcia --
jill.garcia@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Michael Nader of Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart.


SCOTT HARRINGTON: May Face Suit Over Dental Compliance Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbie Alford, writing for Fox23 News, reports that health concerns
and anger have some of the patients of Dr. Scott Harrington
talking to lawyers.

Dr. Harrington is the Tulsa dental surgeon under investigation for
alleged health and safety violations that could have exposed
patients to Hepatitis B, C and HIV.

In an e-mail statement, a Tulsa-based law firm tells FOX23 News,
"It's too early to know if the situation will be ripe for a class
action lawsuit," said Gary L. Richardson.

That will depend on the impact of the allegations and other
factors.

Dr. Harrington was nowhere to be found at his office or at his
home.  The Oklahoma Board of Dentistry says Dr. Harrington never
had a violation until this month.

"I was a wreck when I heard this," said Ms. Owens.

She heard her oral surgeon Dr. Scott Harrington was being
investigated for possibly exposing at least 7,000 patients to
infectious material.

The Tulsa Health Department and the Oklahoma Board of Dental (BOD)
reports they found unsanitary equipment, exposed needles and
dental assistants giving IVs and anesthesia without a license.

"I'm very, very scared especially in light of the equipment and
unsanitary conditions, you know it doesn't take but just one
time," said former patient Deborah Lewis.

FOX23 News knocked on Dr. Harrington's door at his listed home
address but no one answered.  His office in midtown was closed on
March 29.

FOX23 News also went to one of the assistant's home listed in the
violations, but she did not answer.

The BOD told FOX23 News over the phone offices performing
anesthesia are inspected every three years.

Executive Director for the BOD, Sharon Rogers, says inspections
never uncovered any problems but it was a narrow inspection and
they weren't looking other possible violations.

The board reports in the 36 years Dr. Harrington has been
practicing he has had a clean record.

Ms. Rogers says because of case overload, dental offices are only
investigated when there is a complaint.  She assures the community
this is a rare case and 99.9% of dental offices are sanitary

"It's still scary, real scary," said Owens.

Although Ms. Owens knows it's a very slim chance of this type of
transmission is rare, she wants protection.

"I think it was sad that he didn't oversee, how should I say that?
Cleaning, the cleaning process" said Ms. Owens.

An oral surgeon who didn't want to be identified told FOX23 News
it comes down to ethics and protecting patients.

"Something needs to be done.  I don't want to see someone else go
through this.  It's scary," said Ms. Owens.

Ms. Rogers says they are looking at making recommendations to
lawmakers to change regulations.  One option the Board is
considering is requiring dental assistance to pass an infectious
control class before working in a dental office.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Defective ECB Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeremy Fogel denied a renewed motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned RENEE TIETSWORTH, SUZANNE
REBRO, SONDRA SIMPSON, and JOHN CAREY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND
CO., and WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:09-cv-
00288-JF (HRL), (N.D. Cal.).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that certain top-loading
Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines were manufactured
with a defective electronic control board.  According to the
Plaintiffs, the defective ECB results in three different types of
malfunction: (1) a "F1" error; (2) a "F51" error; and (3) a
"sudden instability event" that can result in an explosion when
certain types of fabric are in the wash load. The operative third
amended complaint asserts claims against Whirlpool and Sears under
California unfair competition and consumer protection laws,
California common law, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq.  On May 4, 2012, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with respect to all
of these claims.

After revisiting numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) against the backdrop of
Plaintiffs' new and more limited class definition, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiffs' complaint still lacks sufficient
data to make a common sense assumption that the numerosity
requirement is met; individualized inquiries will vary from class
member to class member and thus are not "common" for purposes of
Rule 23(a)(2); the typicality requirement is satisfied
notwithstanding the fact that the commonality requirement is not;
individualized questions predominate with respect to whether each
putative class member experienced a "false" error code caused by a
defective ECB, whether that class member notified Sears of the
error code, and whether Sears breached the limited one-year
warranty by failing to address the problem -- which individualized
questions are not subject to common proof.

Although Plaintiffs have attempted to limit their proposed class
definition to address the concerns raised by the Court in its
Prior Order, it still appears that "ascertaining class membership
would require unmanageable individualized inquiry," Judge Fogel
concluded.

A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/7BJPI3from Leagle.com.


TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cane Juice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Satran, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that on
March 25, grocery giant Trader Joe's was hit with a class-action
lawsuit accusing the company of intentionally mislabeling several
of its branded packaged foods to make them seem healthier than
they are.

Plaintiffs Amy Gitson, Christine Vodicka and Deborah Ross, all Bay
Area residents, sued because, according to the lawsuit, the
"evaporated cane juice" and "organic evaporated cane juice" listed
as ingredients in Trader Joe's brand yogurt and soy milk were
actually just normal sugar.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the term
"evaporated cane juice" as a synonym for sugar on packaged foods,
but the use of the term has become increasingly common over the
past few years.

The suit also accuses Trader Joe's of falsely claiming that
several of its products contain no artificial flavors, ingredients
or preservatives.  The complaint cites the brand's French Village
Strawberry Nonfat Yogurt, which is tinted with beet juice, and
Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Salted Caramel Truffles, which
contain one of a class of chemical preservatives called
tocopherols, as examples of mislabeled products.

Trader Joe's spokeswoman Alison Mochizuici has told The Huffington
Post the company cannot comment on pending litigation.

Gitson, Vodicka and Ross are asking the court to grant them, and
similarly aggrieved parties across the country, monetary
compensation for what they characterize as fraud on the part of
Trader Joe's.  They also want Trader Joe's to change its labels.

They're represented by Pierce Gore, a consumer affairs attorney
who has been on a legal crusade against food mislabeling since
April 2012, when he filed nine lawsuits (on behalf of different
clients) based on erroneous labels.  Over the past 11 months, he's
filed similar suits against 32 companies selling mislabeled foods,
including six of the 20 biggest food companies in the world:
Kraft, Nestle, Frito-Lay, Hershey's, Dole and ConAgra.  Last
August, The New York Times retail reporter Stephanie Strom
compared the campaign to the war on tobacco companies in the
mid-90s -- a war Gore not-so-coincidentally helped wage.

Speaking by phone from his San Jose, Calif., law firm Pratt &
Associates, Mr. Gore told The Huffington Post that he started the
fight after looking into the FDA's regulations on packaged food
labeling.  He said he figured out that a huge number of companies
were in violation.

"The labeling on packaged food is just a sea of lies," he said.
"It's difficult to describe the breadth of the problem.  American
consumers are being systematically lied to about the foods they
eat."

Mr. Gore said he also quickly figured out that the FDA didn't have
the resources to go after mislabelers.  "We're trying to enforce
laws for which there is no other enforcement mechanism," he said.

He also realized that the laws in California, unlike those in many
other states, allowed private individuals to sue companies over
false food-labeling claims.  So he started casting about for
potential plaintiffs -- who weren't hard to find in health-
conscious San Francisco. (Many, including the plaintiffs in the
Trader Joe's case, are friends or acquaintances of lawyers at
Pratt & Associates.)  California law doesn't require plaintiffs to
have been physically injured by a company to sue it; they need
only to prove "economic injury."

"We just have to prove that people didn't get what they paid for.
It is illegal to distribute, sell or even possess misbranded food
in California," Mr. Gore explained.  "Our plaintiffs bought
products that weren't legal to sell."

Many of the suits, like the one against Trader Joe's, target
companies' use of the term "evaporated cane juice."  But others
take aim at nebulous health claims like "no sugar added" and "all
natural" which lend foods and beverages the air of healthfulness
without signifying anything.  In November, for example, one of
Mr. Gore's clients sued Whole Foods for labeling its in-house
brand 365 Everyday Value Cola as "all natural" even though it
contains caramel flavoring, citric acid and carbon dioxide.

In each of the 32 cases, Mr. Gore's plaintiffs are asking to be
compensated in the form of a partial or total refund for the
mislabeled products they bought.  They are also asking the
companies being sued to change their labels.  Mr. Gore said that
he'd noticed, over the past year, that several packaged food
manufacturers had removed the term "evaporated cane juice" from
their packages, which he chalked up to fear of a lawsuit.

None of the cases have been decided, but five of the defendants
unsuccessfully filed motions to dismiss their suits.

"We haven't lost yet," he said.  "And we're not going to, because
the law is pretty clear.  We allege not only consumer deception,
but actual regulatory violations. That's the difference between us
and previous labeling suits.  It's a lot harder to research the
regulation -- but we feel like we've built a better mousetrap."


TYSON FOODS: Recalls 127,000 Lbs of Breaded Chicken Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc., a Russellville, Arkansas establishment, is
recalling approximately 127,000 lbs. of uncooked breaded chicken
tenderloins and uncooked chicken tenderloin fritter products
because of an undeclared allergen and misbranding.  The product
contains soy, a known allergen not declared on the label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 20-lb. packages of "SPARE TIME Uncooked Chicken Tenderloin
     Fritters" bearing the establishment number "P-5839" inside
     the USDA mark of inspection and a case code of "7083861."

   * 10-lb. packages of "Tyson UNCOOKED, BREADED CHICKEN
     TENDERLOINS" bearing the establishment number "P-5839"
     inside the USDA mark of inspection and a case code of
     "7083928."

The products were produced between March 1, 2013, and March 27,
2013, and shipped to food service companies nationwide for further
distribution to restaurants and institutions.  The cartons bear a
package code of "0603TYLxxxx", "0663TYLxxxx", "0733TYLxxxx",
"0773TYLxxxx", "0813TYLxxxx", or "0863TYLxxxx" under the product
code.  The xxxx represents a time stamp.

The problem was discovered by the company and occurred as a result
of a label change after reformulation of the product.  A marinade
ingredient that included an incorrect sub-ingredient (concentrated
soy protein) was not declared on the label.  FSIS and the company
have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption
of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction should
contact a health care provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Tyson
Foods Consumer Relations at (866) 886-8456.  Members of the media
with questions about the recall should contact Gary Mickelson,
Director Public Relations, at (479) 290-6111.

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.


ULTRATECH INC: Plaintiff Seeks Dismissal of "Rice" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Rice asked in February 2013 the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Clara to dismiss his class
action lawsuit against Ultratech, 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.

Ultratech, Inc. is a defendant in Dennis Rice v. Ultratech, Inc.,
et al., a class action lawsuit commenced on June 14, 2012, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.  The
plaintiff alleges that the proposal in the Company's proxy seeking
approval to increase the authorized shares of common stock from 40
million to 80 million was misleading and incomplete and that the
directors violated their fiduciary duties by making these
misleading disclosures.  The plaintiff sought to enjoin the
stockholders' vote on this proposal.  On July 16, 2012, the Court
held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction
and issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion.  After
plaintiff's motion for an injunction was denied, plaintiff amended
the complaint.  On December 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed papers with the Court
requesting dismissal of the action with prejudice as to himself.
The request for dismissal, which is subject to Court approval,
would dispose of the action without prejudice to the uncertified
class that the plaintiff purports to represent.  Neither the
plaintiff nor his counsel will receive any consideration in
exchange for voluntarily dismissing the action.

Ultratech, Inc. -- http://www.ultratech.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets photolithography, laser thermal
processing, and inspection equipment designed to reduce the cost
of ownership for manufacturers of semiconductor devices, including
advanced packaging processes and various nanotechnology
components, such as thin film head magnetic recording devices,
laser diodes, high-brightness light emitting diodes and atomic
layer deposition for customers located throughout North America,
Europe, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the rest of Asia.
Ultratech was incorporated in Delaware in 1992 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends "Bristol" Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is defending a class
action lawsuit commenced by City of Bristol Pension Fund in
Massachusetts, 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 September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City
of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors of the Company
as defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012, through
June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed
the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of
Bristol's attorneys lead counsel.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2013.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from
certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's common
stock.  The Company believes that this action is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.  As of December 31, 2012, the
Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class
action.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated -- http://www.vrtx.com/-- is
a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.  The Company discovers, develops, manufactures and
commercializes small molecule drugs for patients with serious
diseases.


WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Court Refused to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Alabama was denied in
January 2013, according to the Company's March 1, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 26, 2012, and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.).  The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants").  The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011, and September 21,
2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011.  The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading.  The Plaintiffs claim violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.

On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re
Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action.  On August 20, 2012, the Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this
action.  The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional
defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim
CEO of Walter, in addition to the previously named defendants.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
October 4, 2012.  On January 29, 2013, the court denied that
motion without prejudice.

Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is
no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend
these actions.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion for partial dismissal of the class action
lawsuit initiated by Louise Moore, 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.

The Company and Walter Coke, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed
by Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy,
Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  This is a
putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising
from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including
arsenic, Bopp, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a
result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted
by the companies and/or their predecessors.  On June 6, 2011, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as
a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to
relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing
after March 2, 1995.  On June 20, 2011, Walter Coke filed a Motion
to Dismiss the amended complaint.  On September 28, 2012, the
Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and
denying in part the motion.  In partially granting Walter Coke's
motion, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief was not valid and that class action-related claims must be
dismissed (with leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined
class.  In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that
at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be
dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient
pleading.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012.  On
November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for
partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint.  The
Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal
of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013, and a ruling
is pending.

The Company and Walter Coke believe that there is no merit to the
claims alleged in this action and intend to vigorously defend this
matter.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WALTER ENERGY: Appeal in Ontario Securities Suit Abandoned
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, 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 the appeal in the dismissed
class action lawsuit in Ontario, Canada, has been abandoned.

In November 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Western Coal Corp.,
was named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a
plaintiff who sought leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a
securities class action.  This claim also named Western Coal's
former President and director, John Hogg, and two of its non-
executive directors, John Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants.

The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added
new allegations that sought to have the amended claim certified as
a class action separately from the proposed securities class
action allegations.  The new allegations focused on certain
transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to
the interests of shareholders.  The amended claim included
additional defendants of Western Coal's former Chairman, John
Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and
Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund
Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors
LLP.

The proposed securities claims alleged that those persons who
acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14,
2007, and December 10, 2007, should be entitled to recover $200
million for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages.
The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial
statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the
accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007,
misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that Western
Coal failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all
material facts and changes.

The plaintiff's oppression claims were advanced in respect of
Western Coal's security holders in the period between April 26,
2007, and July 13, 2009.  The claims were that the defendants
caused Western Coal to enter into transactions that had a dilutive
effect on the interests of its shareholders.  The damages
associated with these alleged dilutive effects were not developed
or quantified.

The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also
to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions
were argued in June 2012.  The court dismissed each of these
motions on September 14, 2012.  The action has now been settled
pursuant to a court order dismissing the action without cost.  The
appeal has been abandoned.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Receives Summons in Connection With Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2012, two subsidiaries of Wilhelmina International,
Inc., received a Summons with Notice in connection with a
purported class action lawsuit.  According to the Notice
accompanying the Summons, the purported claims arise out of, among
other things, the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of
models and the use of model images.  Two of the Company's
subsidiaries, along with a number of other model management
companies, advertising firms and others, are named as defendants.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion model
management, which is headquartered in New York City.  The
Company's predecessor was founded in 1967 by Wilhelmina Cooper, a
renowned fashion model, and is one of the oldest and largest
fashion model management companies in the world.  Since its
founding, it has grown to include operations located in Los
Angeles and Miami, as well as a growing network of licensees
comprising leading modeling agencies in various local markets
across the U.S. as well as in Panama, Thailand and Dubai.  The
Company provides traditional, full-service fashion model and
talent management services, specializing in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes and other
talent to various customers and clients, including retailers,
designers, advertising agencies and catalog companies.


* Judge Awards Damages in San Allen Employment Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
George B. Wilkinson, Esq. -- george.wilkinson@dinsmore.com -- at
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP reports that Judge McMonagle has awarded
damages in the San Allen case.  The Judge accepted the plaintiffs'
expert on damages.  He awarded $859,440,258.79 after a hearing on
the issue of the amount of class action damages for employers who
were not in a group rating plan from 2001 to 2009.

The Court specifically rejected the evidence from the Bureau of
Workers' Compensation which suggested that the "Schwartz formula"
should be modified by adding various factors.  The Court rather
abruptly stated that under his prior order, the Schwartz formula
would be accepted and there would not be any alterations to it.
The evidence presented by the BWC was deemed by the Court to be
just that.

This is the final decision on liability and damages.  Non-group
rated employers for the eight years in question will be awarded
this amount allocated and assessed by year and by payroll
reported.  Do not expect checks in the mail; the BWC has stated
that it is going to appeal.  The final resolution probably will
not occur for a year or so.

The BWC responded to the Judge's adverse ruling with a lengthy
press release.  The BWC expressed disappointment, and made several
observations about the employers who were awarded the refund.  The
BWC explained that these employers had claims costs in excess of
premiums of more than $861 million (a coincidence?).  That
translates to $1.26 in claims cost for every premium dollar paid
by the employers in the class.

In addition to appealing this decision, the BWC promises to
continue its Destination: Excellence Program to increase safety
and reduce employer costs.


* Judge Dismisses Libor Manipulation Claims Against 16 Banks
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Eaglesham, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
banks being probed over alleged interest-rate manipulation scored
a big victory in their battle against scores of private lawsuits
seeking billions of dollars in potential damages.

A federal-court judge on March 29 agreed to dismiss claims that
the 16 banks targeted by the suits broke federal antitrust laws
through alleged suppression of the London interbank offered rate,
or Libor.

In a 161-page ruling on the banks' motions to dismiss the leading
suits seeking class-action status, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice
Buchwald allowed some of the claims to proceed, including
allegations the banks breached commodities laws.

But if her ruling stands, it would take out a central plank of the
litigation.  The federal antitrust claims that the judge threw out
can pay up to triple damages.

Unless the plaintiffs can prevail on appeal, the March 29 ruling
on the antitrust claims would significantly reduce the potential
cost to the banks.  The ruling also is likely to reduce the
financial inventive for new plaintiffs to join investors, cities,
lenders and other parties that have already filed lawsuits.

Michael Hausfeld, chairman of law firm Hausfeld LLP, represents
Baltimore as a plaintiff in one of the largest proposed Libor
class-action suits.  His clients will now consider whether to file
an amended suit or to appeal the judge's ruling, Mr. Hausfeld said
on March 29.

Judge Buchwald said her ruling was based on the conflicting legal
arguments affecting the suits, rather than whether the underlying
allegations of rate-rigging were true.

Regulators have alleged that executives and traders at certain
banks tried to manipulate Libor to increase trading profits or
improve the banks' image.  Libor is calculated daily for different
currencies based on estimated borrowing rates submitted by banks
on panels.  The lawsuits target banks on the panel used to work
out U.S.-dollar rates under Libor.

Judge Buchwald ruled that the banks' alleged conduct didn't breach
federal antitrust laws, partly because the Libor-setting process
was a "cooperative endeavor" and "never intended to be
competitive."

That means even if the banks did subvert the Libor process by
putting in fake estimates, any losses suffered by investors and
other plaintiffs would have resulted from the banks'
"misrepresentation, not from harm to competition," the judge
wrote.

The ruling is a rare example of good news for the banking industry
amid the escalating Libor scandal.  So far, Barclays PLC, Royal
Bank of Scotland Group PLC and UBS AG have paid a total of $2.5
billion to settle rate-rigging allegations with U.S. and U.K.
regulators.  About a dozen firms remain under scrutiny.

The private litigation has ballooned as the probe escalated.
Analysts have estimated the potential total bill to banks at
anywhere from $7.8 billion to $176 billion.


* Roe v. Wade Decision Remains Controversial After 40 Years
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ralph E. Stone, writing for The Berkeley Daily Planet, report that
on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade legalized
abortion.  In this case, Jane Roe, a pseudonym for Norma Leah
McCorvey (nee Nelson), brought a class action suit challenging the
constitutionality of a Texas criminal abortion laws, which forbids
procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for
the purpose of saving the mother's life.  The Supreme Court stated
that state criminal abortion laws "that except from criminality
only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard
to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects
against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's
qualified right to terminate her pregnancy."

Roe established a "trimester" threshold of state interest in the
life of the fetus corresponding to its increasing "viability"
(likelihood of survival outside the uterus) over the course of a
pregnancy.  States were prohibited from banning abortion early in
pregnancy but allowed to impose increasing restrictions or
outright bans later in pregnancy.

In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the
"central holding" in Roe, but replaced the trimester system with
the point of fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as when a
state's right to override the woman's autonomy begins.  Casey also
lowered the legal standard to which states would be held in
justifying restrictions imposed on a woman's rights.

In an ironic twist, McCorvey/Roe in 1994 converted to Christianity
and expressed remorse for her part in the Roe v. Wade decision.
She later worked for the pro-life movement, such as Operation
Rescue now Operation Save America, which conducts mass protests at
abortion clinics to promote the pro-life cause.

The Roe decision is significant when you consider that by age 45,
about half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy and
about four in ten will terminate her pregnancy.  Twenty-two
percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in
abortion.

But since the Roe decision, there as been a decades-long "Roe
Rage" or "Roe Backlash" against the decision.  In the last two
years alone, 30 states have passed 135 laws restricting access to
abortion.  For example, twenty-one states have adopted laws
restricting insurance companies from paying for abortions.

The federal Affordable Care Act maintains the status quo of no
federal funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or
when the life of the woman is endangered.  A federal judge
recently wrote "the express language does not provide for taxpayer
funded abortion.  That is a fact and it is clear on its face."
Insurers selling their plans on the state exchanges taking effect
next year must segregate the premiums they collect for abortion
coverage, a definite built-in disincentive.  In addition, under
the Act, states can enact stricter rules of their own.  So far,
nineteen states bar or restrict insurance companies on their
exchanges from covering abortion.

North Dakota is taking Roe rage to the extreme by taking a step
toward outlawing abortions altogether by passing what has been
termed a "personhood resolution," that states a fertilized egg has
the same right to life as a person.  If passed by the voters, the
wording would be added to the state's constitution. In light of
Roe and subsequent decisions, the resolution probably violates the
U.S. Constitution.  But if the matter comes before the present
U.S. Supreme Court, who knows how it will rule.

On the other side of the coin, Washington state is considering
legislation, which would mandate insurance companies to pay for
abortions.  The proposed Reproductive Parity Act would require
insurers in Washington state who cover maternity care -- which all
insurers must do -- to also pay for abortions.  The bill passed
the state House, but must now pass the state Senate and, if it
does, then goes to a popular vote.

And in California, AB 154 was introduced, which would expand the
number of trained health professionals who can provide early
abortion cases.  AB 154 would authorize trained nurse
practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants
to provide early abortions.  Presently, women in 52 percent of
California counties do not have an accessible abortion provider.
If passed, women in rural areas will not have to travel great
distances to find a provider.

Some critics of the Roe v. Wade decision argue that the states
should have worked out delicate matters like abortion for
themselves.

The broad ruling in Roe stopped activity in state legislatures,
created polarization and some would say, damaged the authority of
the court.  But in "Backlash to the Future? From Roe to Perry,"
the authors dispute this so-called Roe Rage or Roe Backlash.
"Before Roe," they wrote, "despite broad popular support,
liberalization of abortion law had all but come to a halt in the
face of concerted opposition by a Catholic-led minority.  It was,
in other words, decidedly not the case that abortion reform was on
an inevitable march forward if only the Supreme Court had stayed
its hand."  Thus, it may have been time for the Supreme Courts to
step in to vindicate the rights of the minority even at the risk
of a rage or backlash.

Forty years later, the Roe v. Wade decision still ignites rage and
a backlash.  The opponents of legalized abortion appear to be
gaining ground and as a result, the cause of women's reproductive
rights are set back.  Do we really want to go back to those dark
days of back alley abortions with a coat hanger or knitting
needle, causing injury and sometimes even death?


                             *********

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  * * *