CAR_Public/130409.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 69

                             Headlines



AES CORP: Faces Class Action Over Bad Service
AMERICAN MANAGED CARE: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Homeowner Insurance Class Action
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suits
BEST BUY: Faces Class Action Over Wage & Hour Violations

BIOSANTE PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lauria" Suit
BP PLC: U.S. Units Ask Judge to Halt Oil Spill Claims Payout
BRAND ENERGY: Katten Muchin Rosenman Discusses Court Ruling
CAREER EDUCATION: Hearing Set for April 25 in Securities Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Deal With Settlement Matters

CAREER EDUCATION: Petition to Appeal Pending in "Lilley" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Surrett" Suit in Oregon
CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends Consolidated Suit Over CSCA
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Suits Involving IAMD
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Brainard" Suit in Florida

CATHOLIC HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Underfunded Pension Plans
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Settled Shaw-Related Class Suits in December
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faculty House Workers Step Up Fight Over Tips
DAIRY FARMERS: Class Members Seek Reduction of Attorney's Fees
DEER CONSUMER: Aug. 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Underfunded Pension Plans
DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls 8,900 Urban Shredder Ride-On Toys
FORD MOTOR: Rejects Claims in Unintended Acceleration Suit
FORD MOTOR: Introduces Fuel Efficiency App Following Class Actions
FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "OPERS" Suit in Ohio

FREDDIE MAC: Appeal From Judgment in Kuriakose Suit Still Pending
FREDDIE MAC: May Be Liable Under Class Suits Over 2007 Offering
FREDDIE MAC: Appeal in Genesee County Class Suit Still Pending
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Overtime Class Action
KMART CORP: "Garvey" Suit Plaintiff Gets OK to Amend Complaint

LIGGETT GROUP: Fla. Supreme Court Rejects Due Process Argument
LITTLE MERMAID: Recalls Smoked Herring and Pickled Herring
LIVINGSOCIAL: Inefficient Staffing Cues Judge to Trim Lawyer Fees
MA LABORATORIES: Ordered to Produce Docs in Wage & Hour Suit
MEDIVATION INC: Awaits Oral Argument Date in Consolidated Suit

MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Loan Sale
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ruling in Videogame Suit May Alter Business
NEVADA: Faces Suit Over "Infamous Crime Against Nature" Law
NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Bolsters Productivity With Baseless Stops
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Exposes Illegal Stop-and-Frisk Policy

RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls All Products From Waycross, GA Facility
RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls More Frozen Mini Meals and Snack Products
SAMSUNG CORP: Consumers May Amend Suit Over Defective Fridge
SPRINT NEXTEL: Appeal Still Pending in "Minnick" Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in "Kwan" Suit

SPRINT NEXTEL: Appeal Still Pending in "Dennings" Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Appeal Still Pending in "Newton" Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Clearwire Continues to Defend "Wuest" Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Delaware
SPRINT NEXTEL: Still Defending Shareholder Suits in Washington

SWREG: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers
TELMEX: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Protection Charges
UNITED STATES: Stillwater May Join Class v. FAA Over Tower Closure
UNITED STATES: Immigration Faces Suit Over Denying Petitions
VERIZON COMMS: Judge Certifies Retirees' Class Action

WASHINGTON POST: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Plumbers' Suit
WASHINGTON POST: Awaits Ruling on Settlement in Reviewers' Suit
WEST PUBLISHING: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for April 15
WHIRLPOOL CORP: New Hearing in Bid to Halt Washer Class Action
WIVENHOE DAM: Queensland Gov't Withholds Documents in Flood Probe

* Brown & Heller Shuts Down After Losing Only Client
* Class Action Settlements Benefit Lawyers More Than Class Members
* Oil Companies Fear Ethanol Mandate May Spur Class Actions


                             *********


AES CORP: Faces Class Action Over Bad Service
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
Cameroonian people and businesses claim AES Corp.'s shoddy
electric service to 660,500 customers is so bad it constitutes
cruel and degrading treatment.


AMERICAN MANAGED CARE: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Managed Care laid
off more than 500 people without cause or proper notice, a class
action claims in Federal Court.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Homeowner Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Choice Insurance reports that the country's five largest
banks scored a victory in a proposed class action that claimed the
banks force homeowners to buy overpriced homeowner insurance if
they allowed their old policies to expire.

Chief U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno in Miami dismissed a
lawsuit targeting Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase
and Wells Fargo and gave plaintiffs the option to refile separate
complaints against each lender by March 28.  The lawsuit also
named insurance carriers Assurant Inc. and QBE Insurance Group and
their affiliates.

The practice of force-placed insurance has been under scrutiny for
nearly two years as homeowners across the country sue their
mortgage lenders for imposing policies that are far more expensive
than market rates.

At stake are hefty commissions that lenders receive from insurance
carriers when they issue force-placed policies.  The suit claims
lenders pass commission costs on to the borrowers, who have no
knowledge of the deal.

The case was filed last year by 21 homeowners across the country
whose lenders force-placed insurance with premiums that resulted
in bloated mortgage payments.

The March 20 ruling came a week after Judge Moreno heard arguments
from bank attorneys to sever the cases.

The 38-count complaint claims racketeering, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.  It also included
statutory claims including violations of the Truth In Lending Act.

Judge Moreno ruled future complaints would be assigned to him.
Having one judge preside over the cases will bring uniformity to
orders involving a same issue, he said.

Coral Gables attorney Adam Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com --
co-counsel for the homeowners, welcomed Judge Moreno's decision.

The homeowners "are glad that one judge will handle these issues
for all five of the banks to avoid inconsistent rulings," said
Mr. Moskowitz with Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

The lenders plan to file motions to dismiss once new complaints
are filed.

Miami attorney Aaron Podhurst -- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- who
also represents the homeowners, said it's important to Florida
residents for the cases to move forward.  He said 75% of the
force-placed insurance market is in the state.

"It is tens of thousands of Florida residents who have been
allegedly mistreated," he said.

Mr. Podhurst of Podhurst Orseck in Miami said his clients have no
problem with lenders imposing an insurance policy if premiums are
competitively priced.

Wells Fargo Bank is already facing a class action on the issue.
U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. in Miami granted a motion
by homeowners Ray Williams and Luis Juarez to turn their complaint
into a class action.  They argued Wells Fargo "colluded in a
scheme to artificially inflate the premiums charged for force-
placed insurance."

That case is now on hold as both parties take a two-week break to
discuss a settlement.

Force-placed insurance has gotten the attention of Fannie Mae, the
biggest buyer of U.S. home loans in the secondary market.  Fannie
Mae announced a year ago that it would seek to oversee force-
placed policies.  In anticipation of that action, Wells Fargo
stopped accepting commissions from lender-placed insurance
carriers for mortgage loans.

The lenders don't comment on pending lawsuit. But a spokeswoman
for JP Morgan Chase said placing insurance is always the lender's
last resort.

"We proactively call and send multiple letters to customers prior
to placing insurance to encourage them to send proof of an active
policy or obtain their own policy," said Amy Bonitatibus, vice
president of Communications for JPMorgan Chase.  "We immediately
cancel the lender-placed policy when a customer confirms that they
have voluntary insurance."

The legal battle has attracted more than a dozen high-profile law
firms including Akerman Senterfitt in West Palm Beach, Carlton
Fields in West Palm Beach, Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart in
New York,Goodwin Procter in Boston, Holland & Knight in Miami,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Miami and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in
Miami.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits over alleged excessive overdraft fees, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043. The complaint in each
case alleges that the Company and/or the Bank have harmed the
plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs. According to the complaints,
plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to
automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and
inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records
in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a
practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the
actual sequence in which such items are presented for payment.
Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers
do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment
policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading. The
Complaint in each case alleges that these actions and omissions
constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act. The Complaint in the Walker case also includes a count for
conversion.

Each of the complaints seek to have the cases certified by the
court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly
situated, and seek a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful
nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of
overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class
(defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result
of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as
a result of the alleged wrongful actions and unspecified
compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-
judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The
Company and Bank believe the plaintiffs' claims are unfounded and
intend to defend against these claims.


BEST BUY: Faces Class Action Over Wage & Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
A Class Action against Best Buy was recently filed week in The
Southern District of New York against Best Buy for alleged Wage &
Hour Violations. (Docket # 7:13 CV 2080).  In the complaint it is
alleged that Best Buy forced its hourly employees to work off the
clock and failed to pay them proper compensation for the off the
clock hours.  The complaint is limited to current and former
hourly employees at the Mt. Vernon store located at 555 E Sandford
Blvd, Mt. Vernon, NY.  The action was commenced by The JTB Law
Group, LLC, and they are investigating any similar complaints at
other Best Buy locations.

The JTB Law Group, LLC is headed by Jason T. Brown, a former
Special Agent and Legal Adviser with the FBI, who has a track
record of multi-million dollar results in similar wage and hour
class actions, although Mr. Brown cautions about drawing any
similarity between past results and any outcome with the Best Buy
litigation.  "The case against Best Buy is in its infancy, and its
best not to draw any conclusions until all the facts are in.
Still, anyone with any relevant information about this case or any
other wage and hour violation are encouraged to call our hotline
at (800) 9100-LAW and speak with an attorney free of charge to
educate about ones rights."

As a result of the sluggish economy, wage theft has become an
increasing problem in New York passed more stringent laws to make
sure employers comply with the law.  Most notably, The New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act -- http://is.gd/7jX18G-- provides for
penalties for failure to inform the employees about their rights
to fair wage practices in the workplace.

According to Attorney Jason T. Brown, "The FLSA in conjunction
with New York State Laws calls for pretty strict penalties,
including double damages, the ability to reclaim damages for
several years, attorney fees paid by the violator and even
stricter anti-retaliation provisions."  Although a complaint has
been filed, Best Buy has not filed an answer yet.  Anyone with
relevant information is encouraged to call The JTB Law Group, LLC
at (800) 9100-LAW.

Contact: Jason Brown, Esq.
         The JTB Law Group, LLC
         Telephone: 877 561-0000


BIOSANTE PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lauria" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 3, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Stephen M. Simes naming BioSante and its President and Chief
Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that certain of BioSante's disclosures relating to the
efficacy of LibiGel and its commercial potential were false and/or
misleading and that such false and/or misleading statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the price of BioSante's
securities resulting in violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Although a substantially
similar complaint was filed in the same court on February 21,
2012, such complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in
April 2012.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons
who purchased BioSante's securities between February 12, 2010 and
December 15, 2011, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
equitable and/or injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert
fees and attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers.  BioSante
believes the action is without merit and intends to defend the
action vigorously.  On November 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  On December 28, 2012, BioSante
and Mr. Simes filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  Briefing on the motion to dismiss is ongoing and is
expected to be completed during the first quarter of 2013.

No further updates were reported in Biosante Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


BP PLC: U.S. Units Ask Judge to Halt Oil Spill Claims Payout
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that citing potentially billions
of dollars in "absurd windfalls" to businesses with fictitious
losses, BP PLC's U.S. subsidiaries have asked a judge to halt
payout of Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims under its $7.8
billion settlement.  BP asserted that the claims administrator,
with the support of the plaintiffs' steering committee, has agreed
to calculate lost profits using a formula that violates the terms
of the settlement.


BRAND ENERGY: Katten Muchin Rosenman Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Gordon, Esq., and Jason F. Clouser, Esq., at Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP report that the US District Court for the
Southern District of Texas recently held that a dispute between a
group of employers and a former employee should be submitted to
arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and
not "illusory" as the plaintiff had argued.  Alleging that, during
his brief employment as a refinery worker, he and other employees
were not properly compensated for overtime work, the plaintiff
brought causes of action for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as equitable claims for quantum meruit and
unjust enrichment.  Defendants moved to dismiss the action and to
compel arbitration on the grounds that the dispute was covered by
a binding arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff should be
compelled to arbitrate individually rather than as part of a class
action.

The plaintiff contended that the arbitration agreement was
"illusory" because it allowed the defendant employer to
unilaterally amend or terminate the agreement retroactively. In
rejecting this argument, the court cited the Texas Supreme Court's
decision, In re Haliburton Co., which involved a similar challenge
by an employee to an arbitration agreement containing almost
identical language.  The court concluded that like the arbitration
agreement in Haliburton, the agreement before it contained
provisions that precluded the defendant employer from
retroactively modifying or eliminating its arbitration policy,
thus making it valid rather than "illusory."  The court further
concluded that the question of whether the plaintiff could
arbitrate on a collective or class action basis was for the
arbitrator to decide.

Gonzales et al. v. Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc.,
No. H-12-1718 (S.D. Tex. March 20, 2013).


CAREER EDUCATION: Hearing Set for April 25 in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A status hearing is set for April 25, 2013, in the consolidated
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Career Education
Corporation, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
et al. On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
naming the Company and various individuals as defendants and
claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making
material misstatements in and omitting material information from
the Company's public disclosures concerning its schools' job
placement rates and its compliance with accreditation standards.
The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their
positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asks for
unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as
ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset
Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems,
and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as lead
plaintiffs in the action. On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims alleged
in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and two former
executive officers as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 19, 2009 and
November 21, 2011. On October 30, 2012, the Court ruled on
defendants' motion to dismiss, granting it as to one of the former
executive officer defendants and denying it as to the other
defendants. On January 28, 2013, defendants filed answers to the
consolidated amended complaint. A status hearing is scheduled for
April 25, 2013.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent
difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the
number of potential class members who might be entitled to recover
damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not
recognized any liability associated with this action."


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Deal With Settlement Matters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to deal with settlement
matters related to Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy
and Career Education Corporation; and Adams, et al. v. California
Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36
other current and former students of the California Culinary
Academy ("CCA") filed a complaint in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco. Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a
putative class action and allege four causes of action: fraud;
constructive fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law; and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon
graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.

"On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also was styled as a class action and was based
on the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempted
to plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action was deemed related to the Amador action and was
being handled by the same judge.

"The parties executed a formal settlement agreement as of
November 1, 2010. On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012,
the Court entered a final judgment on the settlement.

"On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the
Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al , on behalf of 115 individuals who are opt
outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore
not subject to the Amador settlement. On June 15, 2011, the same
attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco County
Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al. , on behalf of another 31 individuals who
are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and
therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On August 12,
2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a third action on behalf of five
individuals who opted out of or were not parties to the Amador
settlement entitled Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy. New counsel has substituted in to represent 78 of the
individuals and the Court has entered orders allowing class
counsel to withdraw from representing the remaining individuals.
On January 18, 2013, new counsel filed a complaint entitled
Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy on behalf of two
individuals who appear to be persons who opted out of the class
action settlement. None of these four suits are being prosecuted
as a class action. They each allege the same claims as were
previously alleged in the Amador action, plus claims for breach of
contract and violations of the repealed California Education Code.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek damages, including
consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. We
have not responded to these four complaints, which have been
deemed related and transferred to the same judge who handled the
Amador case, because they have been stayed pending a final
determination as to which of the remaining individual plaintiffs
have viable claims that are not barred by the final judgment on
the Amador settlement.

"There are 96 total plaintiffs who have not settled or dismissed
their claims. 80 of these plaintiffs are represented by counsel.
Based on the Company's records and the records of the class
settlement, the 16 plaintiffs not represented by counsel received
notice of the settlement and did not file claims, and therefore
their individual claims are expected to be barred. The Court has
ordered all parties to appear at a further case management
conference in March 2013. Discovery is proceeding as to the
plaintiffs who are represented by counsel.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as
discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the
Abarca, Andrade, Aprieto and Coleman legal proceedings with
respect to the remaining plaintiffs is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to us at present, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because these matters are in their early stages and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we
have not recognized any future liability associated with these
actions."


CAREER EDUCATION: Petition to Appeal Pending in "Lilley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for leave to appeal in the class action lawsuit Lilley,
et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., is pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Lilley, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, et al. On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint
was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming
the Company and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. as defendants.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and
September 24, 2010. The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois. The amended complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, for alleged unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as
well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and
fraudulent omission.

"In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

"Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims. The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

"By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons who attended Sanford-Brown College in
Collinsville, Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting
Program during the period from July 1, 2003 through November 29,
2010. This class consists of approximately 2,300 members. On
February 10, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted
defendants' petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class
certification order. By Order filed on October 25, 2012, the
Appellate Court reversed the class certification order. The
Appellate Court also ruled that the four named plaintiffs can
proceed with their individual causes of action and, if successful,
receive an award of actual damages, treble damages if fraud is
proven, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

"Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the
Illinois Supreme Court, and our response is due on March 5, 2013.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent
difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the
number of potential class members who might be entitled to recover
damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not
recognized any liability associated with this action."


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Surrett" Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend itself against
the class action lawsuit, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in
Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in
and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint
individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims
for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for
money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege
that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On
February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class
certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

"Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

"On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. WCI filed an
appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of
Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial
court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. Thus, all
proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent
difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the
number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages,
if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized
any liability associated with the action."


CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends Consolidated Suit Over CSCA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action related to educational services from
California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Vasquez, et al. v. California School of
Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. On June 23,
2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon
v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education
Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud,
constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the
admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged
class is defined as including "all persons who purchased
educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.
("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods
applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without
limitation, the period following the filing of the action)."
Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim
and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully
demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of
California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational
Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6,
2012.

"Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al., v.
California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School
of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are
essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action
case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition
monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All
of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class
action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is
presiding over the Vasquez case.

"On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions.
Defendants' response to the consolidated complaint was filed on
July 13, 2012. The Court has lifted the stay on actions that were
consolidated and the parties are now engaged in discovery.

"On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the
motions with respect to two later versions of the arbitration
agreement at issue, and denied the motions with respect to the
earliest version signed by certain of the plaintiffs.
Approximately 54 individuals signed the later two versions of the
arbitration agreement, and their claims are subject to
arbitration. Nine of those individuals have filed arbitration
demands before the American Arbitration Association to date.

"Among other causes of action, the consolidated complaint alleges
a claim under the repealed Reform Act. On September 25, 2012, the
Court sustained defendants' demurrers to the Reform Act claims
without leave to amend, and overruled defendants' demurrers to the
breach of contract claims which seek remedies under the Reform
Act.

"Defendants issued offers to compromise pursuant to the California
Code of Civil Procedure to 1,119 individual plaintiffs, 334 of
which were accepted. The total amount that has been or will be
paid to eliminate these claims is approximately $2.1 million. This
aggregate amount was recorded in the third quarter of 2012 and the
majority of the payments were made by September 30, 2012. Due to
the recent addition of new plaintiffs, there are currently
approximately 1,379 active plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for these actions with respect to the
current plaintiffs because our possible liability depends on an
assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if we were to be
found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability
associated with these actions."


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Suits Involving IAMD
----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend class action
lawsuits filed against it and International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc., according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On May 23, 2012, a putative class action was
filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for
Hillsborough County, Florida, captioned, Kishia Houck, et al. v.
Career Education Corporation and International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc. The Houck plaintiffs alleged causes
of action under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. They
alleged that the defendants made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, relating generally to salary and employment prospects,
instructor qualifications, transferability of credits, career
placement services, the reputation of the International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value and quality of the
education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant
student loan information. The putative class was defined as
including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants'
degree programs at IADT's Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses
during an undetermined time period. The Houck plaintiffs sought to
recover damages and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

"On July 5, 2012, the action was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. On August 3, 2012, the
Houck plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On
September 7, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the Houck
plaintiffs' claims and to compel arbitration. On October 12, 2012,
the parties jointly moved the Court to postpone most case activity
until it decides whether to refer the case for arbitration.

"On September 11, 2012, a second putative class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned, Juan Antonio Morales, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc. The Morales plaintiffs alleged essentially the same factual
bases and causes of action as in Houck, but added a request for
punitive damages. The definition of the putative class in Morales
was the same as in Houck.

"On October 23, 2012, the Morales plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint in which, among other things, they added several
plaintiffs, including a proposed class representative, and a claim
for civil conspiracy. Thus, Morales included causes of action
under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy.
On November 2, 2012, the Court ordered Morales closed,
incorporated it into Houck, and ordered that all further pleadings
be filed in Houck. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on November 11, 2012, which included all
plaintiffs from both Houck and Morales and added a cause of action
for violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. On November 30, 2012, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss, a motion to compel arbitration, and a motion to strike
the plaintiffs' punitive damages claims. Plaintiffs' filed their
responses to the motion to compel arbitration, motion to dismiss,
and motion to strike on
February 11, 2013.

"David Cohen, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and
International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. On
January 14, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned,
David Cohen, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and
International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. The Cohen
plaintiffs allege causes of action under Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They allege
that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them,
relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor
qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement
services, the reputation of the International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value and quality of the
education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant
student loan information. The putative class is defined as
including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants'
degree programs at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses during
an undetermined time period. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to recover
compensatory and punitive damages and also seek declaratory and
injunctive relief.  The complaint is essentially identical to the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint previously filed in
Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and
International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., raising the
same claims and including the same class definition, with the
exception that the Cohen plaintiffs, unlike the Houck plaintiffs,
have not raised a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss, a
motion to compel arbitration, and a motion to strike plaintiffs'
punitive damages claims on February 11, 2013.

"Ronald Cernohorsky, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and
International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. On January
14, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court
of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County,
Florida, captioned, Ronald Cernohorsky, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc., d/b/a IADT Online. The Cernohorsky plaintiffs allege causes
of action against CEC and IADT Online under Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, breach
of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They allege that
defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating
generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor
qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement
services, the reputation of IADT Online, the value and quality of
the education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant
student loan information. The putative class is defined as
including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants'
online degree programs during an undetermined time period. The
Cernohorsky plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive
damages and also seek declaratory and injunctive relief.  The
complaint is similar to the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint previously filed in Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising &
Design, Inc., but focuses on students enrolled in IADT's online
degree programs, rather than at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida
campuses. Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to
compel arbitration, and a motion to strike plaintiffs' punitive
damages claims on February 11, 2013.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for these actions because, among other
things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is
certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class,
as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages
if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized
any liability associated with these actions."


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Brainard" Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit captioned Danielle Brainard, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown Limited, Inc., according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On September 11, 2012, a putative class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, captioned, Danielle Brainard, et al. v.
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown Limited, Inc. d/b/a
Sanford-Brown College and d/b/a Sanford-Brown Institute-Orlando.
In their complaint, plaintiffs allege causes of action under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs allege
that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them,
relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor
qualifications, transferability of credits, the necessity for
completing a medical assistant program before enrolling in other
technical programs, career placement services, the reputation of
Sanford-Brown College and Sanford-Brown Institute, the value and
quality of the education, the overall cost to attend the school,
and relevant student loan information. The putative classes are
defined as including: (1) all students who are or have enrolled in
defendants' degree programs at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida
campuses during an undetermined time period, and (2) all students
who are or have enrolled in defendants' degree programs at any of
their Sanford-Brown campuses throughout the U.S. during an
undetermined period who were told by defendants that they had to
complete a medical assistant program prior to enrolling in other
technical programs. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages and also
seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

"On October 18, 2012, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.
In this amended pleading, plaintiffs added several additional
plaintiffs and a claim for civil conspiracy. On November 5,
2012, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, a motion to
dismiss, and a motion to strike plaintiffs' demand for punitive
damages. Plaintiffs responded to all three motions on December 28,
2012. The Court has not yet ruled on or set a hearing date for
these motions.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other
things, our potential liability depends on whether a class or
classes are certified and, if so, the composition and size of any
such class(es), as well as on an assessment of the appropriate
measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we
have not recognized any liability associated with the action."


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Underfunded Pension Plans
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that health-
care workers claim in a class action that Catholic Health East
underfunded 60,000 workers' pension plans by $438 million, using a
bogus claim that they are "exempt from ERISA's protections because
they are 'Church plans.'"

Lead plaintiff Albert R. Chavies sued Catholic Health East,
Anthony Camaratto and Clayton Fitzhugh, in Federal Court.  Chavies
claims that Catholic Health East is not owned, operated, or funded
by the Catholic Church.  He says in the complaint that "none of
the CHE [pension] plans meet the definition of a church plan
because CHE plainly is not a church or convention or association
of churches and because none of the CHE plans was established by a
church or convention or association of churches."

Catholic Health East, a nonprofit, "is not controlled by the
Catholic Church and, despite its name, is not 'associated with'
the Catholic Church within the meaning of ERISA because it does
not share common religious bonds and convictions with the Catholic
Church," the complaint states.

"A sampling of facts reveals CHE as a nonprofit hospital
conglomerate, not unlike other nonprofit hospitals. It is not
owned or operated by the Catholic Church and does not receive
funding from the Catholic Church.  It is long since removed from
the days when nuns once ran the hospitals, spread their gospel,
and faithfully stewarded retirement assets for their employees.
Moreover, although not in name, in actuality CHE deliberately
chooses to distance itself from, or even abrogate, many religious
convictions of the Catholic Church, when it is in its economic
interest to do so, such as when it hires employees; partners in
economic joint ventures; performs or authorizes medical procedures
forbidden by the Catholic Church; invests in various business
enterprises; and encourages divergent and contrary spiritual
support to its clients.

"With respect to recruiting and hiring its employees -- those who
then become the CHE retirement plan participants -- CHE is
regularly asked whether a prospective employee should be Catholic,
a question which CHE unequivocally answers in the negative.

"With respect to medical procedures, CHE hospitals encourage
patients to discuss their religious and ethical choices with
doctors on their staff, some of whom perform abortions and
vasectomies, dispense contraceptives and perform in vitro
fertilization in their separate medical practices -- all forbidden
by the Catholic Church."

CHE chooses to align itself with the Catholic Church only when it
comes to its employees' pension plans, according to the complaint.
CHE "wants to maintain and impose a religious status not on its
employees, or in any of the areas detailed above . . . only on the
retirement dollars of its employees. CHE imposes religion on those
retirement dollars because in so doing, according to CHE, it may
underfund the CHE plans by over $438 million and be excused from
the necessary protections that ERISA provides."

Catholic Health East claims on its Internet home page, checked
this morning, that its system "includes 35 acute care hospitals,
four long-term acute care hospitals, 26 freestanding and hospital-
based long-term care facilities, 12 assisted-living facilities,
four continuing care retirement communities, eight behavioral
health and rehabilitation facilities, 31 home health/hospice
agencies and numerous ambulatory and community-based health
services. Catholic Health East facilities employ more than 60,000
full-time employees as partners in ministry."

Chavies seeks declaratory judgment that the pension plans are not
"church plans," as defined by ERISA, and an injunction ordering
the conglomerate to fully fund the plans and pay civil penalties.
He is represented by Casey Preston, with Cohen, Milstein, Sellers
and Toll.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Settled Shaw-Related Class Suits in December
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. settled in December 2012
shareholder class action lawsuits related to its acquisition of
The Shaw Group, Inc., according to Chicago Bridge's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On July 30, 2012, we entered into a
definitive agreement (the "Acquisition Agreement") to acquire The
Shaw Group, Inc., (the "Shaw Acquisition"). On February 13, 2013
(the "Acquisition Closing Date"), we completed the Shaw
Acquisition for a purchase price of approximately $3.3 billion,
comprised of approximately $2.9 billion in cash consideration and
approximately $489.7 million in equity consideration. The cash
consideration was funded using approximately $1.1 billion from
existing cash balances of CB&I and Shaw on the Acquisition Closing
Date, and the remainder was funded using debt financing. Shaw
provides services through four existing business sectors: Power;
Plant Services; Environmental and Infrastructure; and Fabrication
and Manufacturing.

"In connection with the Shaw Acquisition, purported shareholders
of Shaw filed shareholder class action lawsuits against Shaw,
CB&I, and the directors of Shaw. On December 13, 2012, the class
action lawsuits were settled for an amount that was not material
to our results of operations, financial position or cash flow."


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faculty House Workers Step Up Fight Over Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Reyes, writing for Columbia Spectator, reports that
Faculty House cook Osmond Cousins filed a class action suit
against the University for withholding tips on March 25, the
latest escalation in employees' contract dispute with the Columbia
administration.

The lawsuit claims that Columbia is violating New York labor law,
which outlaws employers keeping any percentage of tips.
Mr. Cousins and other workers say Faculty House charges a service
fee that is characterized as a tip but doesn't give any tips to
the employees themselves.

His complaint includes a December voucher given to Faculty House
clients that states that "the bill for this meal" includes "a 15%
tip," which he said misleads customers into thinking that the
service charge will go to the workers.

New York state law states that banquets and special functions
"where a fixed percentage of the patron's bill is added for
gratuities which are distributed to employees" are exempt from the
tip-stealing law.

During their breaks, Mr. Cousins spoke to a small group of workers
to tell them about the lawsuit and the importance of staying
unified.

"These guys need to know that at some point, a letter is going to
come in the mail asking them whether they agree or disagree with
the lawsuit," Mr. Cousins said.  "A lot of them are squeamish
about job security and the meter's running."

A Faculty House voucher dated March 25 provided to Spectator by
the Student-Worker Solidarity group did not include a sentence
about an included tip.  A University spokesperson declined to
comment, and Spectator was unable to verify independently whether
the form was representative.  The rest of the voucher looks
identical to the one included in the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the University and Local 100, the union representing
the workers, agreed to an extension of health insurance for
employees beyond an earlier March 31 deadline.  The insurance will
only extend for as long as the employees are working, meaning it
will end when they are let go seasonally in the summer.

Mr. Cousins and members of SWS -- which has been supporting
Faculty House workers since December -- claim that by the time
Cousins had filed his lawsuit on March 25, Columbia had updated
the vouchers' language and gotten rid of the paragraph about tips
altogether.

Other unions on campus have received salary increases as much as
17% over five years -- and update their classification to reflect
the hours they work.  Right now, part-time workers sometimes work
closer to 60 hours per week.

"You see the good money, and that comes with 80 hours, 90," Zeljko
Mendic, a Faculty House waiter, said.  "But I also have a wife,
two daughters, and it makes no sense for you to work 90 hours if
you don't get to see your family."


DAIRY FARMERS: Class Members Seek Reduction of Attorney's Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that attorneys for
a class of dairy farmers are seeking final court approval of a
$158.6 million settlement, with about a third of the amount going
to themselves.

In court papers filed on March 27 in a case over control of the
milk market in the American Southeast, the attorneys for the class
tried to deflect concerns raised about the $52.8 million in fees
they are seeking as part of the class action settlement reached in
January.

Since the settlement, two class members wrote letters to the court
in Greeneville, Tennessee, asking for a reduction in the
attorneys' fees, which will come out of the settlement.  One of
the class members called the fees "obscenely excessive."

Lawyers at Baker & Hostetler, which served as lead counsel for the
class, countered that the letters offered no legal basis for a
reduction in the fees.  They also noted that their side had
invested $53 million in attorney time plus $8 million in out-of-
pocket expenses, "with no guaranty of any recovery much less a
return."

Defendants in the underlying settlement included the Dairy Farmers
of America and former CEO Gary Hanman, National Dairy Holdings LP,
Dairy Marketing Services LLC and Mid-Am Capital LLC.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants conspired to control the
milk market in 14 states in the Southeast by excluding competition
from independent milk farmers and cooperatives.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained $145 million in settlements
from milk bottler Dean Foods Co, the Southern Marketing Agency and
one of its managers.

The total amount obtained from all of the defendants, $303.6
million, represents the largest antitrust settlement in the
Eastern District of Tennessee, according to lawyers for the
plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Ronnie Greer set an April 3 fairness hearing
to consider whether to approve the latest settlement and fees
sought by class counsel.

Even if the court approves the fees, there is some uncertainty
about where those fees will end up.  That is because when the case
started more than six years ago, Robert Abrams of Baker &
Hostetler, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, was a partner at
Howrey, the defunct law firm that filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

The Howrey trustee, Allan Diamond of Diamond McCarthy, who is
seeking to recover assets for the estate, has indicated in court
papers that he considers fees recovered by Abrams in the dairy
litigation as significant assets belonging to the estate.

Mr. Diamond did not return a call seeking comment.

Mr. Abrams declined to comment.

The case is In Re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, No. 2:08-md-01000.

For dairy farmers: Robert Abrams of Baker & Hostetler.

For Dairy Farmers of America: Steven Kuney of Williams & Connolly.


DEER CONSUMER: Aug. 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 1 disclosed that the United
States District Court Central District of California has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action partial
settlement that would benefit purchasers of publicly-traded common
stock of Deer Consumer Products, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF
DEER CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 13,
2009 THROUGH MARCH 21, 2011, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on August 9, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom 7
- 2nd floor, before the Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States
District Judge of the Central District of California, 312 N.
Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed partial Settlement
consisting of the sum of $2,125,000 should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to $531,250 or 25% of the settlement amount
and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $75,000, and an
incentive payment of no more than $10,000 to lead plaintiffs,
should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased common stock of Deer Consumer Products, Inc.,
during the class period from August 13, 2009 through March 21,
2011, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of
this action.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Partial Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to
Deer Consumer Products, Inc. Litigation c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3 Media, PA 19063
(866-274-4004 (Tel); 610-565-7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net
or going to the Web site, http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release no later than June 5, 2013, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit a written
exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.  If you desire to
be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion received no later than July 10, 2013, in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than July 19, 2013,
to each of the following:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: 213-785-2610
          Fax: 213-226-4684

          Lead Counsel

          William H. Forman, Esq.
          SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
          601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: 213-613-4682
          Fax: 213-613-4656

Counsel for Deer Consumer Products, Inc.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: 213-785-2610
          Fax: 213-226-4684

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

DATED: MARCH 22, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Underfunded Pension Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dignity Health underfunds
workers' pension plans by more than $1.2 billion by falsely
claiming they are "church plans" not subject to ERISA, a class
action claims in Federal Court.


DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls 8,900 Urban Shredder Ride-On Toys
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Dynacraft BSC Inc., of American Canyon, California,
and manufacturer, Heshan Congtin Technological Development Co.
Ltd., of China, announced a voluntary recall of about 8,900 Urban
Shredder Ride-On Toys.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The Urban Shredder ride-on toys can unexpectedly accelerate and
cause the rider to lose control, posing a fall hazard.

Dynacraft has received 17 reports of the Urban Shredder toys
accelerating.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves battery-operated Hot Wheels branded Urban
Shredder ride-on toys.  The toys were sold in green and black
(Model Nos. 8801-05 and 8801-05com) or red and black (Model No.
8801-15) and have Hot Wheels graphics.  Recalled models were
manufactured on September 15, 2012, October 15, 2012, or
December 1, 2012.  Model number 8801-15 or 8801-05 or 8801-05com
and the date of manufacture, formatted as "YYYY/MM/DD," are
printed on a data label on the underside of the Urban Shredder.
The serial number can be found etched or printed on the underside
of the Urban Shredder near the data label.  Serial numbers
included in the recall have:

   a. letters "CT-EEI" followed by a six-digit number in the
      range of 000001 through 003075 and 010759 through 011075;

   b. or the letters "CT-EEJ" followed by a six digit number in
      the range of 003076 through 010758;

   c. or the letters "CT-CEJ" followed by a six digit number in
      the range of 003000 through 005000.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/lTWe2o

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target, Toys R Us and Walmart stores and online at Amazon.com,
Target.com, ToysRUs.com and Walmart.com from November 2012 to
February 2013 for between $270 and $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toy,
disconnect the battery and return the shredder to the store where
purchased for a refund or store credit.  Dynacraft may be reached
at (800) 551-0032 from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday or online at http://www.dynacraftbike.com/,and
click on "Owners," then select "Warnings/Recalls."


FORD MOTOR: Rejects Claims in Unintended Acceleration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that US automaker Ford Motor Company,
which faces a lawsuit over claims its vehicles accelerate without
warning, dismissed the accusations on March 20 as unscientific.

Ford said it had addressed the issue with US regulators, whose
work is "far more scientific and trustworthy than work done by
personal injury lawyers and their paid experts," according to an
e-mail from a company spokesman to AFP.

On March 29, vehicle owners in 14 states filed a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of "potentially millions of purchasers and
lessees of Ford vehicles manufactured between 2002 and 2010."

According to a statement from the plaintiffs, "Ford vehicles
equipped with an electronic throttle control system are vulnerable
to sudden unintended acceleration events."

"Ford has admitted that some of its vehicles are in fact prone to
such acceleration," it said.

Ford's spokesman responded that "in rare situations, vehicle
factors, such as floor mats or broken mechanical components, can
interfere with proper throttle operation."

But he insisted that "manufacturers have addressed these rare
events in field service actions."

In 2009, the world's largest automaker, Japan's Toyota, recalled
around 10 million vehicles worldwide for a similar problem of
unintended acceleration.

Once lauded for its safety standards, the defects and mass recalls
tarnished the brand's image and hurt sales in 2010 and 2011.


FORD MOTOR: Introduces Fuel Efficiency App Following Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Priddle, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that Ford
wants to help customers measure more accurately the fuel economy
of their Ford vehicles to counter claims that the company has
overstated the mileage of certain models.

Speaking at the New York Auto Show, Jim Farley, Ford head of
global sales and marketing, announced the Personalized Fuel
Efficiency App Challenge.  Software developers can access Ford's
OpenXC onboard data platform to come up with app solutions.

Ford is offering up to $50,000 to developers who deliver hardware
or software that helps drivers understand the effect of the
elements and driving habits on their fuel economy.

"We need to help customers understand the concept of personal fuel
economy, based on their own individualized experiences, and give
them tools to see, learn and act upon all the information
available to know what to expect, how to improve, and even offer
guidance in their shopping process," Mr. Farley said.

The announcement follows consumer complaints, class-action
lawsuits and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigation
into the gap between mileage posted on new vehicle stickers and
what drivers claim they are getting.

Ford has said it is working with the EPA and discussing whether
the government tests need to be revised to better reflect real-
world conditions.

"Given the connectivity in our cars and the proliferation of
mobile devices, we have the opportunity to give consumers better
and more-relevant data to understand what they can expect in on-
the-road fuel economy performance," Mr. Farley said.

Brendon Kraham, Google director of global mobile sales and product
strategy, said the in-car mobile experience soon will be
integrated into all the devices that connect a consumer's life.

The proliferation of mobile devices is just one shift in car-
buying patterns in the wake of the recession.

"Just as everyone is breathing a huge sigh of relief about getting
back to something resembling normal sales levels, the real news is
that the Great Recession has dealt a fundamental change to the
consumer's mind-set," Mr. Farley said.  "Now the question is,
'What do they want and expect from us, and are we really ready to
respond to what has just taken place?'"

Mr. Farley said other post-recession trends include more female,
Latino and millennial buyers and a redefinition of luxury to
include smaller, less-pretentious and more-affordable cars and
crossovers.

"More than 1 billion women will enter the middle class globally by
2020, and many will be buying vehicles for the first time," Farley
said.  He noted that women now outnumber men as buyers in the
U.S., and that, in other countries, they are entering the
professional work force in greater numbers.

Latino households now have a total net worth of more than $500
billion, and there has been a 126% increase in households making
more than $100,000 a year.

"Millennials are also a significant opportunity, as they will
start entering the family stage in record numbers during the next
several years," Mr. Farley said.

In luxury, he cited a Luxury Institute survey that found 60% of
respondents expect a fully equipped luxury vehicle to cost less
than $60,000.


FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "OPERS" Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac continues to
defend itself against the class action lawsuit, Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al. This putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain
former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through
November 20, 2007. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees. On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed
OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel. On
September 2, 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint. On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint. On November 19, 2008, the Court granted
FHFA's motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator. On
April 6, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On January 23, 2012, the Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed its
third amended complaint, which included allegations based on a
non-prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the
SEC on December 15, 2011. On
April 26, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the third
amended complaint. The Court denied the motions on May 25, 2012.
On August 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs comprised of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007, which Freddie Mac has
opposed. Discovery is ongoing.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; and the fact
that the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss."


FREDDIE MAC: Appeal From Judgment in Kuriakose Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a judgment in the class action lawsuit, Kuriakose
vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook, remains pending,
according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie
Mac's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and
Cook. This putative class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie
Mac and certain former officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007
through August 5, 2008. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants
made false and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business
that artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common
stock, and sought unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On February 6, 2009, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene
in its capacity as Conservator. On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed
an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 20, 2007
through September 7, 2008. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on February 24, 2010. On March 30, 2011, the Court
granted without prejudice the defendants' motions to dismiss all
claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file a new
complaint, which they did on July 18, 2011. On October 13, 2011,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint. On February 17, 2012, the plaintiffs
served a motion seeking leave to file a third amended consolidated
complaint based on the non-prosecution agreement entered into
between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December 15, 2011. On September
24, 2012, the Court granted with prejudice defendants' motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint in its entirety,
denied plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint, and
directed that the case be closed. Judgment was entered in favor of
the defendants on September 27, 2012. On October 26, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event
plaintiffs' appeal is granted and the case is remanded to the
District Court; and the fact that the parties have not briefed and
the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss."


FREDDIE MAC: May Be Liable Under Class Suits Over 2007 Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac may have
some exposure to certain class action lawsuits related to its
November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 16, 2011, the SEC announced that
it had charged three former executives of Freddie Mac with
securities laws violations. These executives are former Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Richard F. Syron, former
Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L.
Cook, and former Executive Vice President for the single-family
guarantee business Donald J. Bisenius.

"By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

"On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. On April 30, 2009, the
Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2,
2009. The consolidated complaint alleged that three former Freddie
Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor
violated federal securities laws by making material false and
misleading statements in connection with the company's November
29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating
Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock. The complaint
further alleged that certain defendants and others made additional
false statements following the offering. The complaint named as
defendants Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer Anthony S. Piszel, Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
JPMorgan Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,
UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

"After the Court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, amended consolidated complaint, and second
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Syron
and Piszel, omitting Cook and the underwriter defendants, on
November 14, 2010. On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the
remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with respect
to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect
to Syron and Piszel. On April 4, 2011, Piszel filed a motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted that motion
on April 28, 2011. The plaintiffs moved for class certification,
which motion was ultimately denied by the Court. On May 31, 2012,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the denial of class
certification. In August 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to file
another motion for class certification, which request the Court
denied on September 25, 2012.

"Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the underwriting agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel. At
present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable outcome
of the lawsuit or any potential effect on our business, financial
condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, we
are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the foregoing
matter due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the fact
that plaintiffs may appeal the denial of class certification.
Absent the certification of a specified class, the identification
of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement
or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss.

"On July 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for Massachusetts styled Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
Peerless Insurance Company, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau,
Safeco Corporation and Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston
vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co. The complaint alleges that Goldman, Sachs
& Co. made materially misleading statements and omissions in
connection with Freddie Mac's November 29, 2007 public offering of
$6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative
Perpetual Preferred Stock. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant
in this lawsuit.

"In an amended complaint dated February 17, 2012, Western and
Southern Life Insurance Company and others asserted claims against
GS Mortgage Securities Corp., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and
Goldman Sachs & Co. in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County,
Ohio. The amended complaint asserts, among other things, that
"Goldman Sachs" is liable to plaintiffs under the Ohio Securities
Act for alleged misstatements and omissions in connection with $6
billion of preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac on December 4,
2007. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit."


FREDDIE MAC: Appeal in Genesee County Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or
Freddie Mac in the class action lawsuit initiated by Genesee
County (Michigan) and the Genesee County Treasurer remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On June 20, 2011, Oakland County (Michigan)
and the Oakland County Treasurer filed a lawsuit against Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan alleging that the enterprises failed to pay
real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in
Oakland County where the enterprises were the grantors. FHFA later
intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. On
November 10, 2011, Genesee County (Michigan) and the Genesee
County Treasurer filed a class action lawsuit in the same court on
behalf of itself and the other 82 Michigan counties raising
similar claims against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and
Fannie Mae. The Court later certified the class, with two Michigan
counties opting out. The Michigan Department of Attorney General
and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened in both actions
against the defendants. In both actions, FHFA, Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae asserted that they were not liable for the transfer
taxes based on federal statutory tax exemptions applicable to
each. On March 23, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment
against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae in both
actions, determining that the statutory exemptions did not exempt
them from Michigan's state and county transfer tax. The plaintiffs
in both cases subsequently filed amended complaints to cover
purportedly taxable transactions where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
received property as grantees through a Michigan Sheriff's deed or
a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

"FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the
District Court has stayed the actions pending resolution of the
appeal. The District Court has not yet addressed the amount of
damages the plaintiffs contend are owed in either case."


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Permanente stiffs
underwriters for overtime and refuses rest periods and meal
breaks, even though it has the means to pay, a class alleges in
court.


KMART CORP: "Garvey" Suit Plaintiff Gets OK to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup entered an order granting a motion to
amend the lawsuit captioned LISA GARVEY, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KMART
CORPORATION, Defendant, No. C 11-02575 WHA, (N.D. Cal.), to add
new plaintiffs and to allow intervention and vacating a hearing.

In this certified class action involving suitable seating, a prior
judgment was issued in December 2012 in favor of Kmart and against
a class of cashiers from a Kmart store in Tulare, California.
Despite ruling in favor of Kmart, the December 2012 order noted
that "[t]he possibility of certifying a broader class as to the
rest of the Kmart stores in California remains open. At trial, no
class manageability issues arose and, indeed, it became apparent
that class treatment for at least the Tulare store was entirely
appropriate".  At the conclusion of the evidence but before the
Court's verdict, Kmart refused to stipulate to allowing the Tulare
case to govern the rest of the stores in California, thus
necessitating further trials. Lisa Garvey moved to amend to add
new plaintiffs who worked at other Kmart locations.

In his ruling, Judge Aslup directed Ms. Garvey to file an amended
complaint by April 1 at noon. The April 4 hearing is vacated.  The
January 10 case management order is amended as follows: (1) all
initial disclosures must be updated by April 15; (2) plaintiffs
must file their motion for further class certification by April 11
at noon.

The Plaintiff has submitted a discovery dispute letter regarding
Kmart's alleged failure to respond to recent written discovery and
provide a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. The Court's order expresses no
opinion on that dispute at this time except to note that the
parties should cooperate to move discovery forward immediately and
expeditiously.

A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/H5yvJ1from Leagle.com.


LIGGETT GROUP: Fla. Supreme Court Rejects Due Process Argument
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Sweda, Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products
Liability Project, reports that Florida smokers and their families
who are suing tobacco companies won a resounding victory on
March 14, 2013 when the Supreme Court of Florida upheld its
landmark 2006 ruling in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d
1246 (Fla. 2006).

By a vote of 6 to 1, Florida's highest court ruled in favor of the
plaintiff in Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al. v. Douglas, 2013 Fla.
LEXIS 440, upholding a $2.5 million award in the death of
Charlotte Douglas and explicitly rejecting industry arguments that
the Florida Supreme Court's ruling seven years ago violated the
Due Process rights of the companies.

The Engle case originated as a class action and went to trial
before a jury; that jury in Phase I of the trial found the
defendant companies strictly liable, in that the cigarettes that
the defendants manufactured and placed on the market "were
defective in many ways including the fact that the cigarettes
contained many carcinogens, nitrosamines, and other deleterious
compounds such as carbon monoxide."  While the case ultimately was
not allowed to proceed as a class action, the Supreme Court of
Florida ruled in 2006 that the members of the class could file
their own individual cases (so-called "Engle Progeny" cases) and
proceed with those cases relying upon the jury's Phase I findings
of liability, including that smoking caused a variety of specific
diseases, that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, that the
tobacco defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were
defective and unreasonably dangerous and that all of the Engle
defendants were negligent.

The tobacco companies have argued that, despite the fact that they
vigorously presented a defense to these claims during the original
Engle trial, applying the Phase I findings to the Engle Progeny
trials violates their due process rights.  Even though the R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. relied on this argument unsuccessfully in the
Martin case a year ago, the companies tried again in Douglas.
Commenting on the original Engle trial, the six-member majority in
Douglas said: "As illustrated by hundreds of witnesses, thousands
of documents and exhibits and tens of thousands of pages of
testimony, the Engle defendants had notice and the opportunity to
defend against all theories of liability for each of the class's
claims in the yearlong Phase I trial."

That six-member majority also noted that the tobacco defendants
"argue that the Phase I findings establish, at most, that some of
their cigarette were defective for some unspecified reason and
that they engaged in some, unspecified tortious conduct.  This,
they claim, requires reversal of the verdict for the plaintiff
based on strict liability because the Douglas jury was not
instructed (and did not find) a causal connection between a
specific defect in the defendants' cigarettes and the injuries
alleged.  We disagree and decline the defendants' invitation to
revisit our decision in Engle."

The majority clearly recognized and emphatically rejected the
industry's fundamental argument.  "At its core, the defendants'
due process argument is an attack on our decision in Engle to give
the Phase I findings res judicata -- as opposed to issue
preclusion -- effect in class members' individual damages actions.
However, res judicata is the proper term, and we decline the
defendants' invitation to rewrite Engle."

The decision was bad news for the tobacco industry and its friends
on Wall Street.  Pro-industry analyst David J. Adelman of Morgan
Stanley admitted that the ruling "was even more pro-plaintiff than
we expected and will make it more difficult for the industry to
successfully defend these claims."

After the decision was released, Philip Morris USA announced that
"it plans to seek further review" of the Douglas decision.  That
means yet another attempt to persuade the Supreme Court of the
United States to consider the industry's appeal that Engle Progeny
trials that result in plaintiff verdicts somehow violate the
companies' due process rights.  If the Supreme Court of the United
States makes the same decision it made a year ago about an almost
identical appeal (Martin), the answer to the tobacco companies
will be a final "No."


LITTLE MERMAID: Recalls Smoked Herring and Pickled Herring
----------------------------------------------------------
Little Mermaid Smoke House is recalling Smoked Herring and Pickled
Herring fish because the products were found to be uneviscerated,
and have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or
death.  Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it
does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

The following products are recalled:

   * Little Mermaid Smoked      Sold prior to 04/04/2013
     Herring fish

   * Little Mermaid Pickled     Sold prior to 04/04/2013
     Herring fish

The recalled products are manufactured by Little Mermaid Smoke
House and distributed in the state of California.  These products
are sold as whole fish, packaged in vacuum sealed packaging, and
labeled "Little Mermaid Smoke House" which varies in weight and
size.  There are no codes listed on the products.  The recall
includes products sold prior to 04/03/2013.  Pictures of the
recalled products and label are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm346677.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Products were found to be uneviscerated during an inspection by
the Food and Drug Administration.  The sale of uneviscerated fish
is prohibited because Clostridium botulinum spores are more likely
to be concentrated in the viscera than any other portion of the
fish.

Consumers who have purchased Smoked and Pickled Herring fish are
advised not to eat it and should return it to the place of
purchase or discard for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company Little Mermaid Smoke House at (818)764-
0005 Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time Zone.


LIVINGSOCIAL: Inefficient Staffing Cues Judge to Trim Lawyer Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, citing inefficient staffing and high hourly rates, U.S.
District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle slashed attorney fees in half
for plaintiffs' lawyers in multi-district litigation against daily
deal company LivingSocial.

In a March 22 opinion approving a settlement between consumers and
LivingSocial over expired deals, Judge Huvelle awarded $1.35
million in fees to the 12 law firms that represented the
plaintiffs, instead of the $3 million they asked for as part of
the settlement.  Co-lead plaintiffs' counsel at Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd did not immediately return
requests for comment.

LivingSocial spokesman Andrew Weinstein said in a statement that
the company was "pleased to have brought this litigation to a
conclusion, so we can focus all of our efforts on creating great
local experiences for our customers."  The company was represented
by a team from Cooley; lead attorneys Michael Rhodes and
Christopher Durbin were not available this morning to comment.

Washington-based LivingSocial was hit with a series of class
actions beginning in 2011 over expired deals that consumers bought
through the company's Web site.  The plaintiffs claimed the
vouchers' limited expiration dates violated the federal Credit
Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, as well as
state laws regulating gift certificates.  LivingSocial denied its
vouchers were gift certificates and argued that even if they were,
the expiration dates did comply with state and federal laws.

Class actions filed in D.C., California, Florida, Washington and
Minnesota federal courts were consolidated as multi-district
litigation in D.C. in August 2011 and settlement talks started
soon after, according to filings.  Judge Huvelle preliminarily
approved the settlement in October.

Under the settlement, LivingSocial agreed to establish a $4.5
million fund to reimburse class members whose deals expired before
they were used.  The class included about 10.9 million consumers
who bought deals between 2009 and late 2012.  Any remaining funds
would go to the Consumers Union and National Consumers League as
cy pres awards.

LivingSocial also agreed to clarify the separate expiration dates
for the promotional value of a deal -- $5 for $10 worth of
services, for instance -- versus the actual paid value of a
voucher, which would expire in compliance with state or federal
laws (whichever was longer).

Plaintiffs' lawyers asked for $3 million in fees, an amount that
LivingSocial agreed not to contest.  Judge Huvelle wrote that
although the four formal objections to the settlement agreement
were "largely meritless," she agreed with complaints about the
size of the fee request.

Judge Huvelle criticized how the plaintiffs' legal team staffed
the case, noting that 46 lawyers, at the 12 firms involved in the
case, billed time.  "At a minimum, this is a highly inefficient
way of doing business," she wrote.

Plaintiffs' lawyers billed more than 4,000 attorney and paralegal
hours, a number that Judge Huvelle called "excessive" given that
there were only three depositions taken and two briefed motions.
She said she was unwilling to accept the high hourly rates charged
by some attorneys working on the case, citing the $600 rate
charged by Cuneo partner Charles LaDuca as exceeding the
established Laffey Matrix amount.

Judge Huvelle rejected the argument that plaintiffs' counsel
should be paid based on a percentage of the estimated value of the
settlement and its injunctive relief, which the plaintiffs'
lawyers pegged at $62 million. She instead awarded 18% of the
settlement fund, which was estimated at $7.5 million.

"A modest percentage is appropriate in this case given the limited
value of the direct benefits to the class members, the small
number of class members who will benefit, the proportionally large
cy pres distributions . . . and the somewhat dubious value of the
injunctive relief," Judge Huvelle wrote.


MA LABORATORIES: Ordered to Produce Docs in Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins issued an order granting a
request filed by plaintiffs in LOU v. MA LABORATORIES, INC., to
compel disclosure of putative class members and responses to
discovery.

This discovery dispute arises from the Defendants' stonewalling of
discovery in this wage-and-hour class action. The Court perceives
that the Defendants do not wish to participate in discovery
because they filed a motion to compel arbitration. The motion to
compel arbitration is pending before District Court Judge William
H. Alsup.  Judge Alsup, however, was precise in his "Order
Regarding Participation in Discovery" issued February 6, 2013,
where he said that the Plaintiff is entitled to "reasonable
discovery" on the issues raised in the motion to compel
arbitration. The Defendants' "stonewalling, if it persists, will
be a legitimate basis to deny the motion to compel arbitration in
full."

The Defendants' reluctance to engage in discovery has continued
since Judge Alsup referred discovery to Magistrate Judge Cousins.
On March 13, 2013, the Court held a hearing to address discovery
objections raised by the Defendants.  After considering briefing
from all parties, the Court held a further discovery hearing on
March 27.  At the hearing, the Defendants decried the burden of
the proposed discovery and proposed a protective order restricting
use of the discovery.

In his March 28 ruling, Judge Cousins granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel disclosure of the names and contact information
of the putative class members. He said the Court finds
unpersuasive the Defendants' unsubstantiated allegations of
improper solicitation of class members by the Plaintiffs' counsel.
Counsel for the Defendants represented that declarations and
evidence of improper solicitations would soon be ready to
substantiate the Defendants' claims, but could not explain why the
Defendants have not already brought such evidence to the attention
of the Court. If such allegations are true, the Defendants will
have the opportunity to raise the issue, with briefing and factual
evidence, to Judge Alsup in connection with class certification,
Judge Cousins said.  He added that he will grant a protective
order as modified to prevent any improper solicitation of class
members by the Plaintiffs' counsel. The Plaintiffs were required
to file the revised protective order by March 29.

The Court said it is also not persuaded by the Defendants'
asserted burdens, and is not impressed by the Defendants' lack of
discovery diligence since Judge Alsup's February 6 discovery
order.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Defendants to produce:

   1. By April 1, 2013, all responsive documents that have been
      gathered already and all documents from sources that they do
      not claim impose a burden.

   2. Beginning immediately, with completion by April 18, 2013,
      the Defendants must produce the categories of ESI at issue
      in the Defendants' declarations (phone call logs, sales
      data, payroll and timekeeping data, commission and SPF data,
      and the e-mail data of the account managers, human resources
      staff, and sales and branch managers relevant to these
      categories of employee information).

   3. Also by April 18, 2013, the defendants must file and serve a
      declaration, under penalty of perjury, verifying that they
      have complied with the order.

The Court deferred consideration of an award of sanctions against
the Defendants and their counsel until after April 18, 2013. Any
party may object to the order within fourteen days.

The case is MICHELLE LOU, and others, Plaintiffs, v. MA
LABORATORIES, INC., and others, Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-05409
WHA (NC),(N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/xSIY5Rfrom Leagle.com.


MEDIVATION INC: Awaits Oral Argument Date in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc., continues to await oral argument date related to
an appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
complaint filed in California, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In March 2010, the first of several putative
securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuits are
largely identical and allege violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements about the effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of
Alzheimer's disease. The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an
award of their costs and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of
stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
between September 21, 2006 and March 2, 2010. The actions were
consolidated in September 2010 and, in April 2011 the court
entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Thereafter, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint, which was dismissed
without prejudice as to all defendants in August 2011. The lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November 2011. In
March 2012, the court dismissed the second amended complaint with
prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Lead
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2012. The appeal is fully
briefed, and we are awaiting notice of the date for oral
argument."


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Loan Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Erin Rice, writing for Crazy Joys, reports that recent media
reports just disclosed that Bank of America Corp Merrill Lynch
faces class action lawsuit filed by a trust that seeks nearly
$309 million dollars in damages for breaches of warranties and
representation related to the sale of about 5000 mortgages.  In
addition to the Merrill Lynch unit the trust also sued Sand Canyon
unit of H&R Block Inc. after the firm breached identical
warranties and representations made about other mortgage loans.

Sand Canyon sold its servicing assets to American Home Mortgage
Servicing and terminated its originating mortgage loans in
December 2007.  The firm discontinued remaining operations in
April 2008.  The class action lawsuit was filed in New York State
Supreme Court in Manhattan.  In the court filing it has been
accused that Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending failed to buy back
loans as required by agreements reached in 2007.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ruling in Videogame Suit May Alter Business
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Daily Editorial Board, as the NCAA tournament
continues, most viewers will notice promotional portions of the
broadcast containing former players and their classic "one shining
moments."  Importantly, the NCAA uses these videos without making
any royalty payments to former student-athletes.

This is a result of Form 08-3a, in which players must sign away
the rights to their likenesses for the promotion of NCAA athletics
free in order to play in the NCAA.  This is the core of Ed
O'Bannon's case against the NCAA, which was recently certified as
a class action lawsuit.

Mr. O'Bannon alleges the NCAA's practice of forcing players to
sign away their likeness rights constitutes a violation of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which prohibits artificially fixing
prices.  While it has been upheld in the courts that the NCAA's
interest in ensuring amateurism of student-athletes -- and
therefore their ability to prohibit endorsement deals and payments
to student-athletes -- Mr. O'Bannon's suit is able to distinguish
itself because he is suing as a former athlete.  His likeness was
used in NCAA Football, a game by EA Sports, as part of a "classic"
UCLA Bruins team.

A ruling in favor of Mr. O'Bannon could fundamentally alter the
way the NCAA does business.  It is likely that the NCAA would have
to establish some form of a trust fund to make payments to former
athletes.  However, this raises significant Title IX issues, which
mandates that men and women receive roughly equal opportunities in
higher education.

Administrators argue that this would make it harder for the
revenue sports, such as men's football and basketball, to support
the non-revenue sports.  While some funding would be diverted,
these athletes deserve some form of payment -- perhaps in the form
of continued medical insurance coverage.


NEVADA: Faces Suit Over "Infamous Crime Against Nature" Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that Nevada's
"infamous crime against nature" law threatens same-sex teenage
couples with life in prison for behavior that is legal for mixed-
sex couples, a class action claims in Federal Court.

"John Doe had a consensual sexual relationship with another male
teenager at a time when Doe was seventeen and the second teenager
was sixteen," the complaint states.  "If either Doe or the other
teenager had been a girl instead of a boy, their sexual
relationship would have been completely legal under Nevada law.
But because the two teenagers were both boys, Elko County
prosecuted John Doe in juvenile court for 'incit[ing], entic[ing],
or solicit[ing] a minor to engage in acts which constitute the
infamous crime against nature.'" (Brackets in complaint.)

Doe sued Elko County and its District Attorney Mark Torvinen.  He
seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction and a dollar.

The complaint continues: "The 'crimes against nature' statute
creates a double standard that treats identical conduct
differently based solely on whether the sexual activity involves
two persons of the same sex.  Under Nevada law, sixteen is the
legal age of consent to engage in 'ordinary sexual intercourse,
anal intercourse, cunnilingus or fellatio.' N.R.S. Sec. 200.364.
The statute setting the age of consent, N.R.S. Sec. 200.364, makes
no distinctions between heterosexual or homosexual activities.
But a separate statute that criminalizes solicitation of a minor
to engage in 'crimes against nature,' singles out the identical
conduct for severe criminal penalties when it involves two
'persons of the same sex.' N.R.S. Sec. 201.195.2.  The 'crimes
against nature' statute thus enables prosecutors to circumvent the
age of consent established by N.R.S. Sec. 200.364 and prosecute
identical conduct under N.R.S. Sec. 201.195 if, and only if, the
sexual conduct involved a same-sex couple."

Doe says he could face up to life in prison for engaging in
consensual sex.  The complaint continues: "Although the charges
against Doe for violating N.R.S.Sec. 201.195 have now been
dropped, Doe continues to face a realistic threat of prosecution
as a result of Elko County's policy, custom, and practice of
enforcing the unconstitutional 'crimes against nature' statute.
While he is in Elko County, Doe is free under Nevada law to form
intimate relationships and engage in consensual sexual activity
with partners who are sixteen or older as long as those partners
are female.  If, however, Doe seeks to form an intimate
relationship and engage in consensual sexual activity in Elko
County with a male partner who is sixteen or seventeen years old,
he faces a realistic threat of prosecution for 'incit[ing],
entic[ing], or solicit[ing] a minor to engage in acts which
constitute the infamous crime against nature.' N.R.S. Sec.
201.195.1.  Even if no sexual activity actually occurs, Doe faces
punishment for committing a gross misdemeanor if he communicates
with a potential male partner who is sixteen or seventeen years
old in a manner that could be construed as 'incit[ing],
entic[ing], or solicit[ing] a minor to engage in acts which
constitute the infamous crime against nature.' N.R.S. Sec.Sec.
201.195.1; 201.195.1.1(b)(1).  If Doe engages in such
communications on two occasions, he faces a mandatory sentence of
life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 5 years.
N.R.S. Sec. 201.195.1(b)(2). As a result of Elko County's policy
of enforcing the 'crimes against nature' statute, this same threat
of prosecution hangs over any gay person in Elko County who seeks
to form an intimate relationship with a same-sex partner who
satisfies the general age of consent but is under eighteen.

"The discriminatory 'crimes against nature' statute violates equal
protection under any standard of review."

Doe was born in April 1994.  He is represented by Staci Pratt with
the ACLU of Nevada.

"This outdated, discriminatory law should have been removed long
ago.  This lawsuit seeks to ensure that no Nevadan can be
prosecuted under this unconstitutional, discriminatory law again,"
ACLU Nevada's interim executive director Tod Story said in a
statement.


NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Bolsters Productivity With Baseless Stops
------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria J. Browne-Marshall, writing for Milwaukee Courier, reports
that New York City Police Department's stop and frisk policy is on
trial.  Police can stop, question and frisk anyone.  A police
sergeant said "they might live there but we own the block."  His
voice was taped in secret.  However the war on Blacks and Latinos
is no secret.

Protesters chanted, "They say get back.  We say fight back."
Tensions were high; security tight.  In this six week long Federal
class action trial, intricate details of New York City's police
department stop, question, and frisk practices are being exposed.
This case, Floyd v. City of New York, was brought by the Center
for Constitutional Rights (CCR).  David Floyd, a medical student,
African-American, was stopped twice by NYPD.

Any verdict will have a national effect because New York City has
an internationally respected police force.  However, in 2011, the
New York City Police Department (NYPD) detained nearly 700,000
people. Of those, almost 80% were African Americans and Latinos,
mostly males.  With five million stops recorded since 2004, only
12% resulting in arrest or summons, a core issue in the Floyd case
is NYPD allegedly bolstering its productivity reports with
baseless stops of Blacks and Latinos.

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court gave police officers broad
authority to stop and pat down, or frisk.  Terry v. Ohio allows an
officer to stop and frisk when there is reasonable suspicion of
imminent danger.  It appears the imminent danger requirement has
been forgotten. Work-related productivity goals, not danger, is
motivating NYPD.

Fifteen New York City attorneys were present in court.
Paralegals, investigators, administrative assistants, and
secretaries comprised the battalion of tax-payer paid experts used
to defend 'stop and frisk' procedures.  New York City's Mayor
Michael Bloomberg and his Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly argue
it is as invaluable tool to curb gun violence.  CCR intends to
prove the city is violating the constitutional rights of Blacks
and Latinos with suspicion-less stops.  NYPD lost the first 'stop
and frisk' case, Ligon v. City of New York, challenging its 'Clean
Halls' practices.

Police "stop and frisk" activity is allegedly linked to efforts to
appear productive.  Expert Eli Silverman, professor emeritus at
John Jay College, has written about officers being pressured to
manipulate numbers.  Downgrading violent crimes makes the city
appear safer.  Increasing stops in certain communities makes
officers appear more productive.  Higher productivity could result
in promotions, vacation time, and a day-time work schedule --
"dollars for collars."

Testimony revealed if certain officers did not have enough arrests
or summons then supervisors "would find you a collar."  Refusing
to make the numbers could lead to poor evaluations, denial of
requests for days off, and humiliating work assignments.

A secret tape revealed a standing order to stop Black teenagers.
An Inspector is heard saying "male Blacks, 14-21" fit the
description since they commit most of the crimes.  However, no
specific crimes were given.  Testimony revealed police willing to
stop innocent people 90 percent of the time if it meant finding
something illegal, not necessarily guns, 10 percent of the time.

The UF 250 is the NYPD form for stop, question, and frisk.
Testimony revealed police sergeants, at roll call, coaxing
officers to write tickets and especially 250s.  "There is plenty
of crime out there," the taped voice reminded officers at the
beginning of their shift.

Stop, question, and frisk gives officers power to detain.  In New
York City, boys are stopped while fixing a bicycle on the
sidewalk.  Men are stopped while chatting in front of a Prince
Hall Mason Lodge.  Girls are stopped walking from school.  Teens
are stopped standing at bus stops.  Witnesses testified to the
lingering trauma of being arbitrarily stopped by police.

On tape, a sergeant is heard telling his officers, the "less
people on the street, the easier our job is."  "They all have
warrants anyway," the secretly taped sergeant told officers before
leaving the precinct to 'protect and serve' a Brooklyn community.
No accusation of a crime is needed.  An officer can merely say,
"You fit the description."

NYPD's policy allows an officer to touch any man, woman or child.
Stepping in from behind, he slides his hands over an adult or
child's legs, arms, buttock, chest, back and head.  Without
movement or complaint, women and men must submit to a stranger
feeling their body in search of evidence.

An officer can force a detained person into a "vertical."  A
vertical requires lying on the ground, waiting in rain, cold, or
filth, on public display, for the officer to give an order to
rise.  A female sergeant is taped suggesting more verticals.
"Shine a light in their faces" because it could provoke a
confrontation leading to an arrest.

An arrest is more productivity.  NYPD's 250 form contains a box
titled "furtive movement."  Furtive movement is cause for arrest.
It could be a threat or suspicious action or nothing at all.  The
250 form does not require evidence of "furtive movement."
Testimony revealed no NYPD supervisor scrutinizes UF 250s for
evidence of abuse like racial profiling.  Officers need only check
a box.

Then, a quota is made.  A life is changed.


NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Exposes Illegal Stop-and-Frisk Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Li Onesto of Revcom.us, more than 1.6 million people
live in Manhattan, New York.  If every single one of these people
were detained and harassed, had their pockets gone through and
were humiliated . . . . if all these people had this done to them
not only once, but three times . . . this would be the number of
stop-and-frisks carried out by the NYPD since 2004: five million
in the last nine years.  And it's not just the sheer number that
is such an outrage:

   * In 88% of these encounters -- 4.4 million -- the person
     detained was doing nothing wrong.

   * Nearly 90% of those stopped were Black or Latino.

   * Only 1.9% of those frisked in 2011 had a weapon.

   * In 2002, there were less than 100,000 stop-and-frisk stops;
     in 2011 there were 685,724 -- a 600% increase.

    Class Action Law Suit Exposes Illegality of Stop-and-Frisk

Headlines about stop-and-frisk have now hit the news with the
trial of a lawsuit that charges the NYPD with "engaging in racial
profiling and suspicion-less stop-and-frisks of law-abiding New
York City residents."  The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
filed the federal class action lawsuit Floyd, et al. v. City of
New York, et al, in 2008.  This trial, which started March 18, is
expected to last for a month and a half, and include testimony by
dozens of people exposing how stop-and-frisk violates people's
civil and constitutional rights.

This high-profile case will contribute to many more people seeing
how in fact stop-and-frisk is racist, illegitimate, and illegal.
In just the first few days, some damning testimony has already
come out.  The lead plaintiff in the case, David Floyd, a Black
medical student in the Bronx, testified how he has been subjected
to stop-and-frisk twice: once as he was just walking down the
sidewalk and a second time when he was helping a neighbor who had
been locked out of their apartment.  Floyd said, "I felt like I
was being told I should not leave my home . . . First and
foremost, I didn't do anything; I am not a criminal."  A 16-year-
old Devin Almonor also testified, recounting how he was stopped
and frisked and then arrested when he was 13-years-old as he was
walking home.  A lawyer representing the City of New York
suggested a cellphone in his front pocket might have "created a
bulge," -- as if that was reason enough for a cop to stop him to
look for a concealed weapon.

Bronx NYPD officer Pedro Serrano taped his supervisor telling him,
"The problem was what? Male blacks.  And I told you that at roll
call, and I have no problem telling you this: male blacks 14 to
20."  That tape was played in court.

The very fact this case has come to court is in large part a
response to growing anger and protest against stop-and-frisk.  In
the last few years, many different people have been speaking out
against this official policy of the NYPD, organizing protests and
marches, holding programs and writing articles of exposure.  In
2011 Cornel West and Carl Dix put a call out for mass civil
disobedience to "STOP Stop & Frisk."  Dozens of people --
including well-known community leaders, people from the
neighborhoods, activists from Occupy, students, and celebrities --
put their bodies on the line, protesting at police precincts in
Harlem, Queens and Brooklyn.  These actions led to mass arrests
and trials and helped raise the whole level of struggle against
stop-and-frisk. People who have been victims of stop-and-frisk
have felt emboldened to speak out about the injustice they have
faced and to fight against it.  And all this has been driving the
motion, protest, and awareness around stop-and-frisk.

According to CCR attorneys, the plaintiffs in this case (Floyd, et
al v. City of New York, et al) represent the many thousands of
other people in New York who have been stopped without any cause -
- on their way to work, in front of their house, or just walking
down the street.  The CCR and the plaintiffs say the NYPD
unlawfully stopped these individuals, overwhelmingly, because they
are men of color.  Nearly 90% of those stopped are Black and
Latino, even though these two groups make up only 52% of the
city's population.  This, the suit argues, constitutes a violation
of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The suit
also alleges that stop-and-frisk violates the 4th Amendment's
prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

          Why Does This System Stop-and-Frisk the Youth?

Among the millions of people who have been targeted by stop-and-
frisk there has been tremendous resentment and anger for years.
More recently, other sections of society have been learning about
this outrage and now with this lawsuit many more are hearing
stories from victims of stop-and-frisk.

Lots of people are talking about what's wrong with stop-and-frisk.
But what is the real problem with stop-and-frisk? And what is the
real solution? In order to answer this question, we have to step
back and look at why this system -- with its armed enforcers --
has conscious policies like stop-and-frisk, not just in New York
City, but in cities all around the country.

If you talk to the victims of stop-and-frisk, especially Black and
Latino youth, they will tell you how they're stopped all the time,
for no reason at all.  They will recount how this started when
they were 11-years-old, even younger, how they're humiliated and
threatened and this just becomes "part of daily life."

But also, as they talk about their lives, their families, and the
communities they live in, you will begin to see how stop-and-frisk
is part of a bigger picture of police brutality and murder, and
how it serves as a pipeline for mass incarceration, where nearly
2.4 million people are behind bars.  One thing can lead to
something else: You get stopped, for nothing. You're now in the
data base, labeled a "gang member."  Maybe you get charged for
something small.  Then it all adds up.  Pretty soon you find
yourself facing time and you're one of the millions who end up in
prison.  And if you ever get out, you're marked for life, denied a
job, housing, benefits, the right to vote and more.

This is a system that has no future for millions of Black and
Latino youth.  As one Black youth from Harlem, who attended the
New York premiere of REVOLUTION -- NOTHING LESS! said, "A lot of
people do say this is the land of the free.  But people like me,
it's just totally the opposite because I'm the definition of
America's enemy.  I'm a young Black youth in the inner city.  They
wrote us off before we was born.  We was convicted at birth."

Prison wardens who oversee the hellholes of solitary confinement
where some 40,000 people are kept in torture-like conditions call
these prisoners the "worst of the worst."  And this whole way of
treating a whole section of people as less than human permeates
the whole system -- from the police on the streets, to the courts,
government officials and politicians.

This system cannot provide a decent education and jobs for
millions of Black and Latino youth.  Major changes and jolts in
the U.S. economy have meant that the job market for working-age
African-American males has essentially collapsed in cities across
the country.  This system of capitalism runs according to the laws
of profit-above-all, expand-or-die, and exploit-to-the-maximum.
And so over the last 40 years many, if not most, of the industrial
jobs that Black people had in the past have been lost as factory
production moved from the inner cities to the suburbs or overseas
where profits are higher.  By the year 2000, nearly half of
working-age Black males were unemployed in many inner city
neighborhoods.  In 2003, nearly half of Black men between 16 and
64 in New York City were unemployed.

The fact that many millions of Black and Latino youth have no
future under this system presents the ruling class with a huge
problem in terms of maintaining social and political stability.
The powers-that-be remember the revolutionary upsurges of the
1960s and 70s, in particular the Black liberation struggle -- and
fear the potential of those they oppress today.  To prevent this
from happening again, the deep roots of the oppression of Black
people and other minority peoples have been reinforced, even as
some of the forms of this have changed.  This is what many now
call the "new Jim Crow."  And this is what stop-and-frisk, as a
pipeline for mass incarceration, is all a part of.

                     A Problem of Legitimacy

Millions of people now recognize that stop-and-frisk is illegal
and unconstitutional.  People, not just in New York City, but
around the country and internationally, now know that in the USA
-- which calls itself the "leader of the free world" -- the NYPD
routinely and as a matter of policy, viciously violates the civil
and human rights of people, especially Black and Latino youth.
And it is a big problem for the powers-that-be when lots of people
begin to question the very legitimacy of the way they rule and
enforce "law and order."

Black and Latino lawmakers and officials have made statements
against stop-and-frisk -- some speaking about how they themselves
have experienced being stopped by the police, solely because they
"fit the profile."  And stop-and-frisk has become a major issue in
the 2013 mayoral race with a number of candidates talking about
the need to "reform" the policy.

Those who maintain the oppressive status quo in society rely on
violent repression, but they also rely on people going along with
and accepting the way things are.  And it is also a fact that by
and large, middle class forces in society aren't even aware of the
oppressive and repressive conditions that the masses of people on
the bottom of society have to put up with on a daily basis.  But
when broader forces in society do become aware of something like
stop-and-frisk, begin to see the illegitimacy of it, and speak out
against this, this can give the masses of people more freedom to
lift their heads and fight against their oppression.

In the face of such widespread exposure of stop-and-frisk, the
problem of legitimacy for the NYPD is reflected in the fact that
figures within the NYPD are calling for the policy to be
"reformed" and some current and former police officers are
scheduled to testify as plaintiffs in the Floyd lawsuit.  But to
be clear, the concern on the part of the ruling class is not for
the victims who are brutalized every day, the concern is not for
the millions of human rights violations.  The concern is for the
legitimacy and stability of the system and its ability to rule.

John A. Eterno, a retired New York City police captain, voiced
this concern: "Interactions like stop-and-frisk bring serious
problems, weakening trust and cooperation with the police . . .
This approach alienates minority communities and youth who could
be helping to fight crime.  If they see something, they will not
say something to officers abusing their authority and not working
with communities.  This is a key principle of community policing."

Perhaps an analogy could be made here.  U.S. generals occupying
and carrying out murderous wars for empire always emphasize the
need to "win the hearts and minds" of the people they are
conquering.  General Stanley McChrystal, top commander of the
murderous U.S. war in Afghanistan said in an interview, "If the
people are against us, we cannot be successful.  If the people
view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful and our
casualties will go up dramatically."

This is the logic of brutal armed enforcers of this system and as
BA has said about the police:

"The role of the police is not to serve and protect the people.
It is to serve and protect the system that rules over the people.
To enforce the relations of exploitation and oppression, the
conditions of poverty, misery and degradation into which the
system has cast people and is determined to keep people in.  The
law and order the police are about, with all of their brutality
and murder, is the law and the order that enforces all this
oppression and madness." [BAsics 1:24]

            So-Called "Solutions" -- and the REAL Solution

Mayor Bloomberg and Police Chief Ray Kelly have staunchly defended
and are standing firm behind stop-and-frisk.  They say it is
necessary to "prevent crime" -- hoping to appeal to the prejudices
of the middle class, as well as others, who fear the basic masses,
especially the youth.

Other figures in the ruling class have stepped forward with
proposals for how to maintain police state repression while
channeling people's anger into reformist "solutions" that will
accomplish two things: restore people's faith in the system and
keep people from looking for/working for radical and revolutionary
solutions that really get to the heart of the problem.

The ruling class needs to find a way to put a lid on and channel
people's anger, as well as resolve the differences within the
ruling class over how to deal with this.  But whatever differences
there are, the "solutions" being offered all amount to keeping the
system -- and its oppressive rule over the people, and in
particular the brutal role of the police -- solidly intact.

Lawmakers are proposing things like requiring officers to "explain
why they are stopping people," or "telling people when they have a
right to refuse a search" or "handing out business cards
identifying themselves."  Such "solutions" do not solve the
problem.  Not only are they ridiculous, they could be used to put
a lid on people's anger.  Just ask the youth who have been slammed
up against the wall and had their faces shoved into the sidewalk
-- what difference it will make to require a cop to "explain why
he's stopping you" or that he "hands you a business card" while
he's violating your civil rights.

And there are similar "solutions" being put forth by many others,
who may be well-intentioned.  The class action lawsuit, for
example, is asking the court to create "a process for obtaining
community input" to change the stop-and-frisk practices, and to
appoint a monitor to ensure that the department's policies comply
with the Constitution.  The New York Times, in reporting on the
lawsuit said, "The authority of the police to use stop-and-frisk
tactics is not at issue, but how the Police Department conducts
these street interactions . . ." (March 22, 2013)

As Carl Dix has said in response to these efforts to "reform"
stop-and-frisk: "This injustice can't be reformed away.  Stop-and-
frisk must be ended.  When slaves on the plantations rose in
rebellion or escaped, they weren't trying to get a half day off on
Saturday.  They wanted an end to slavery.  When the Freedom Riders
put their lives on the line in the 1960s, they weren't trying to
get more seats on the back of the bus.  They were fighting to end
Jim Crow segregation."

The government, the courts, police, prisons, etc. are not "neutral
things" that can be "reformed" in any fundamental way to serve the
interests of the people.  And it does real harm when this wrong
idea is not only spread, but people are roped into chasing after
such an illusion.  Such instruments of the state -- both the tools
of violent suppression like the police, as well as the "democratic
procedures," are structured to serve the interests of whole
oppressive setup and the capitalist class that rules over the
people.

"We need to wage a fierce and determined struggle to force them to
STOP stop-and-frisk altogether.  We must change the way society
thinks about these things.  We need to fight to put the ruling
class back on its heels politically, and we need to wage struggle
against all the ways the system brutalizes the people.  We need to
do this as part of exposing that things do not need to be this
way.  We can change all this and countless other crimes of this
system through revolution.  We have to fight the power, and
transform the people, for revolution," Ms. Onesto said.


RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls All Products From Waycross, GA Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Products Corporation of Buffalo, New York, which previously
announced a voluntary recall of certain Farm Rich(R) and Market
Day(R) products is expanding its voluntary recall to include all
products produced at its Waycross, Georgia plant with "Best By"
dates ranging from January 1, 2013, to September 29, 2014, due to
possible contamination with Escherichia coli O121 bacteria ("E.
coli O121").  The expanded recall is in addition to products
recalled on March 28, 2013.

The CDC has reported 24 cases of E. coli 0121 in 15 states.
Symptoms of the illness include mild to severe diarrhea and
abdominal cramps.  Blood is often seen in the stool.  Usually
little or no fever is present.  Although most healthy adults can
recover completely within 5-10 days, certain individuals can
develop a complication called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS)
which can cause the kidneys to fail.  HUS is most likely to occur
in young children and the elderly.  The condition could lead to
serious kidney damage and even death.

While Rich Products is unaware of any illnesses associated with
the products included in the expanded recall, its unwavering
safety commitment to its customers caused it to take this action.

"When it became apparent to us that, despite the expertise of the
USDA, the FDA, the scientific community and our own experts,
identification of a specific cause was not going to be a simple or
short process, we decided to act proactively to expand the
recall," said Bill Gisel, Rich's President and Chief Executive
Officer.

Mr. Gisel added that Rich's will continue to cooperate fully with
federal, state and local agencies investigating this situation.

Specific product information is as follows:

                      Foodservice Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The production date range for these products is: Julian Dates
15821182 to 15823088.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Product
Code      Product Description             Julian Dates
-------   -------------------             ------------
65232     Farm Rich Whole Grain Rich      15821182 - 15823088
           Pepperoni Pizzata 10/2.5lb
UPC Code: 10041322652321

65233     Farm Rich 1 oz. Better For You  15821182 - 15823088
           Pizza Dipper 5/5lb.
UPC Code: 10041322652338

65234     Farm Rich Turkey Pizzata 9/3lb. 15821182 - 15823088
UPC Code: 00041322652348

65265     Farm Rich 2 oz. Stuffed Crust   15821182 - 15823088
           Pizza Dippers 2 oz.10/2.7lb.
UPC Code: 10041322652659

65268     Farm Rich 1 oz. Stuffed Crust   15821182 - 15823088
           Pizza Dippers 1/25lb.
UPC Code: 10041322652680

65278     Farm Rich 2 oz. Better For You  15821182 - 15823088
           Pizza Dipper 2oz. 10/2.7lb.
UPC Code: 00041322652782

65282     Pepperoni Pizzata 1/24.75lb.    15821182 - 15823088
UPC Code: 00041322652829

65292     Farm Rich Handheld Stuffed      15821182 - 15823088
           Pepperoni Pleezer 10/2.57lb.
UPC Code: 10041322652925

65302     BBQ Chicken Sandwich Melt       15821182 - 15823088
           10/2.5lb.
UPC Code: 00041322653024

65303     Meatball Marinara Sandwich      15821182 - 15823088
           Melt 10/2.5lb
UPC Code: 00041322653031

                    Consumer Brands Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Product
Code      Product Description             Julian Dates
-------   -------------------             ------------
32521     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           44 oz. cartons

UPC Code: 0 41322 32521 1
Case Code: 1 00 41322 32521 8
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

32522     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           44 oz. cartons

UPC Code: 0 41322 32521 1
Case Code: 1 00 41322 32522 5
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

36450     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 37813 2
Case Code: 1 00 41322 36450 7
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

36633     Farm Rich Pizza Slices          15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35603 1
Case Code: 1 00 41322 36633 4
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

36450     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 37433 1
Case Code: 1 00 41322 36450 7
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

37455     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           2 lb. cartons

UPC Code: 0 41322 37455 4
Case Code: 1 00 41322 37455 1
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

35611     Farm Rich Mini Quesadillas      15821182 - 15823088
           20 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35611 6
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35611 3
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

35618     Farm Rich Philly Cheese Steaks  15821182 - 15823088
           21 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35618 5
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35618 2
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

35622     Farm Rich Mini Bacon            15821182 - 15823088
           Cheeseburgers 21 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35622 2
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35622 9
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014


35631     Farm Rich Mini Quesadillas      15821182 - 15823088
           18 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35611 6
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35631 1
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

35633     Farm Rich Mini Pizza Slices     15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35603 1
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35633 5
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

37433     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 37813 2
Case Code: 1 00 41322 37433 9
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

55312     Schwan's Mini Meatball          3G1182XXXX -
           Sandwiches 1 lb. bags           3G3088XXXX

UPC Code: 0 72180 55312 6
Case Code: 1 00 72180 55312 3
Best By Date: N/A

61008     Schwan's Baked Mozzarella Bites 3G1182XXXX -
           22 oz. bags                     3G3088XXXX

UPC Code: 0 72180 61008 9
Case Code: 1 00 72180 61008 6
Best By Date: N/A

35635     Farm Rich Mini Quesadillas      15821182 - 15823088
           18 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35635 2
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35635 9
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

35643     Farm Rich Mini Pizza Slices     15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35643 7
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35643 4
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

37690     Farm Rich Mini Pizza Slices     15821182 - 15823088
           7.2 oz. cartons

UPC Code: 0 41322 37690 9
Case Code: 1 00 41322 37690 6
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

35634     Farm Rich Philly Cheese Steaks  15821182 - 15823088
           21 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 35634 5
Case Code: 1 00 41322 35634 2
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

37443     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. bags

UPC Code: 0 41322 37443 1
Case Code: 1 00 41322 37443 8
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

37691     Farm Rich Mozzarella Bites      15821182 - 15823088
           7 oz. cartons

UPC Code: 0 41322 37691 6
Case Code: 1 00 41322 37691 3
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

80435     Market Day Mozzarella Bites     15821182 - 15823088
           22 oz. cartons

UPC Code: 0 41322 80435 8
Case Code: 1 00 41322 80435 5
Best By Date: Jan. 1, 2013 - Sept. 29, 2014

The products were distributed nationwide to Retail Stores and
select Foodservice Distribution Customers.

Rich's has already notified all of its distributors and customers
who have received the product in question, and has directed them
to remove and destroy the affected product.  All other affected
product under Rich's control has been quarantined and will be
destroyed.  Rich's has previously filed with the Reportable Food
Registry, ICSR #1029392.  A new Reportable Food Registry filing
has been made, ICSR # 1029453 and is linked to the original
report.

Customers who have purchased these products and have any questions
should contact Consumer Relations at 1-888-220-5955 24 hours, 7-
days per week, or visit the Company's Web site at
http://www.farmrich.com/.

* Note to editors: The products in this recall only pertain to the
Waycross, Georgia Facility.  This recall does NOT include the
following Farm Rich products: Mozzarella Sticks, Jalapeno Peppers,
Marinara Stuffed Mozzarella Sticks, Mushrooms, Stuffed Pretzel
Bites, Queso Cheese Bites, Pepper Bites, Onion Rings and all
varieties of Meatballs and French Toast Sticks (These products are
manufactured in different facilities that are not affected by the
recall).


RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls More Frozen Mini Meals and Snack Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Products Corporation, a Buffalo, New York firm, is expanding
its recall of various heat treated, not fully cooked frozen mini
meals and snack items to more than 10.5 million pounds because
they may be contaminated with E. coli O121, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced
today.  The expanded recall covers all products produced at the
Company's Waycross, Georgia plant with "Best by" dates ranging
from January 1, 2013, to September 29, 2014.

The following FSIS-regulated products are subject to the expanded
recall:

Retail products --

   * 21-oz. bags of Farm Rich mini bacon cheeseburgers,
     UPC code 0 41322 35622 2

   * 1-lb. bags of Schwan's mini meatball sandwiches,
     UPC code 0 72180 55312 6

   * 18-oz. bags of Farm Rich mini quesadillas,
     UPC code 0 41322 35611 6, case code 1 00 41322 35631 1

   * 18-oz. bags of Farm Rich mini quesadillas,
     UPC code 0 41322 35635 2, case code 1 00 41322 35635 9

   * 20-oz. bags of Farm Rich mini quesadillas,
     UPC code 0 41322 35611 6, case code 1 00 41322 35611 3

   * 21-oz. bags of Farm Rich Philly Cheese Steaks,
     UPC code 0 41322 35618 5, case code 1 00 41322 35618 2

Foodservice products --

   * 25-lb. cases containing 2.5-lb. foodservice paks of BBQ
     Chicken Sandwich Melt, UPC code 00041322653024,
     Product code 65302

   * 25-lb. cases containing 2.5-lb. foodservice paks of Meatball
     Marinara Sandwich Melt, UPC code 00041322653031,
     Product 65303

   * 25-lb. cases containing 2.5-lb. foodservice paks of Farm
     Rich Whole Grain Rich Pepperoni Pizzata,
     UPC code 10041322652321, Product code 65232

   * 27-lb. cases containing 3-lb. foodservice paks of Farm Rich
     Turkey Pizzata, UPC code 00041322652348,
     Product code 65234

   * 24.75-lb. foodservice paks of Pepperoni Pizzata,
     UPC code 00041322652829 , Product code 65282

   * 25.7-lb. cases of 2.57-lb. foodservice paks of Farm Rich
     Handheld Stuffed Pepperoni Pleezer,
     UPC code 10041322652925, Product code 65292

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

The following FDA-regulated products are subject to the expanded
recall.  FSIS is issuing this news release to make the public
aware that these products are also considered potentially
adulterated and should be properly discarded or destroyed.

Retail products --

   * 44-oz. cartons of Farm Rich in a pizzeria style crust,
     UPC code 0 41322 32521 1

   * 22-oz. bags of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 0 4132237813 2

   * 22-oz. bags of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 0 72180610008 9

   * 22-oz. bags of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 0 4132237443 1

   * 22-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 0 4132280435 5

   * 7-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 0 4132237691 3

   * 2-lb. cartoons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 04132237455 4

Foodservice products --

   * 5-lb. foodservice paks of Farm Rich Better For You Pizza
     Dipper, UPC code 10041322652338

   * 25-lb. foodservice paks of Farm Rich Stuffed Crust Pizza
     Dippers, UPC code 10041322652680

   * 2.7-lb. foodservice paks of Farm Rich Stuffed Crust Pizza
     Dippers, UPC code 10041322652659

   * 2.7-lb. foodservice paks of Farm Rich Better For You Pizza
     Dipper, UPC code 00041322652782

The following products are subject to the FSIS recall issued March
28:

   * 7.2-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mini pizza slices with cheese
     pepperoni and sauce in pizza dough, UPC code 041322376909

   * 22-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mini pizza slices with cheese
     pepperoni and sauce in pizza dough, UPC code 041322356437

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

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

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

In addition, the following products, which fall under FDA
jurisdiction, were also recalled March 28.  FSIS is issuing this
news release to make the public aware that these products are also
considered potentially adulterated and should be properly
discarded or destroyed.

   * 22-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 041322374431

   * 7-oz. cartons of Farm Rich mozzarella bites in a pizzeria
     style crust, UPC code 041322376916

   * 22-oz. bags of Market Day Mozzarella Bites,
     UPC code 041322804358

The products subject to recall were produced between July 1, 2011,
and March 29, 2013, then distributed for retail or restaurant sale
nationwide.  FSIS and the establishment are concerned that some
product may be present in household freezers.

FSIS was notified of a multistate investigation of E. coli O121
illnesses on March 19, 2013.  Food samples were collected from an
ill individual in New York as part of this investigation, and
tested by the New York State Department of Health Wadsworth
Laboratory.  At present, the outbreak includes 24 cases in 15
states that led to seven hospitalizations and one case of
Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a type of kidney failure.  A
sample of a Farm Rich frozen chicken mini quesadilla product from
a New York case tested positive for the outbreak strain of E. coli
O121.  Additionally, a sample of leftover Farm Rich mini pepperoni
pizza slices product from a Texas case tested positive for the
same strain, confirmed by FSIS lab technicians.  Ten cases in
Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Virginia report consuming Farm Rich products.  FSIS is continuing
to work with federal and state public health partners on this
investigation, including the New York State Department of Health,
New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, Food and Drug
Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

Infection with E. coli O121 can result in dehydration, bloody
diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average)
after exposure to the organism. While most people recover within a
week, some develop HUS.  This condition can occur among persons of
any age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older
adults.  Symptoms of HUS may include fever, abdominal pain, pale
skin tone, fatigue, small, unexplained bruises or bleeding from
the nose and mouth and decreased urination.  Persons who
experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care
immediately.

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

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

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

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

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name       Location
    -------------       --------
    Alco                Nationwide
    Apple Market        Stores in KS, MO, and NE
    BJs                 Stores in CT, DE, FL, and MD
    Brookshire Brothers Stores in AR, LA, and TX
    Bruno's             Stores in AL
    Coborn's            Stores in MN
    Country Mart        Stores in KS, and MO
    Dahl's              Stores in IA
    Dillons             Stores in KS and NE
    Dominick's          Stores in IL
    Fareway             Stores in IA
    Food 4 Less         Stores in CA
    Food City           Stores in KY, TN and VA
    Food Lion           Stores in NC, PA, SC, TN, VA
    Fred Meyer          Stores in OR and WA
    Hannaford           Stores in CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI and VT
    Harris Teeter       Stores in NC
    Harveys             Stores in FL, GA and SC
    HEB                 Stores in TX
    Ingles Markets      Stores in GA, NC, SC and TN
    Meijer              Stores in IL, IN, KY, MI and OH
    Meijer              Stores in IN
    Piggly Wiggly       Stores in AL
    Price Chopper       Stores in KS and MO
    Publix              Stores in FL and GA
    Ralph's             Stores in CA
    Safeway             Stores in AZ, CA, CO, OR, and WA
    Schnuck's           Stores in MO
    Shaw's              Stores in ME
    Smart and Final     Stores in CA
    Stewart's Shops     Stores in NY and VT
    Supervalu           Stores in CO, OR and UT
    Target              Stores in AZ, FL, IA and TX
    Thriftway           Stores in KS, MO, and NE
    United Supermarkets Stores in TX
    Von's               Stores in CA
    Walmart             Nationwide
    Wegman's            Stores in NY and PA
    Weis                Stores in MD, NY, NJ, PA and WV
    Winn-Dixie          Stores in South Florida
    Kroger              Stores in AL, AZ, DE, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI,
                        MO, NC, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WA 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 Center  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


SAMSUNG CORP: Consumers May Amend Suit Over Defective Fridge
------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
of consumers can amend claimed that Samsung knowingly sold them
defective refrigerators that stopped cooling, a federal judge
ruled.

Jeff Weske had led the original 2010 class action that accused
Samsung of knowingly selling refrigerators with a circuit board
defect that would eventually cause coils to freeze over and stop
the fridge from cooling.

"The defective refrigerators do not perform their essential
function of keeping food cool, rendering the refrigerators useless
or of significantly diminished value long before the end of their
reasonably expected useful life," the New Jersey-filed complaint
stated.

Samsung moved to dismiss the complaint, which has been amended
twice so far, and U.S. District Judge William Martini complied on
March 19.  There is not enough evidence to show Samsung knew about
the defect before the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, according to
the ruling.

"Besides from referencing a single customer service hotline
attendant, the SAC [Second Amended Complaint] does not identify
who at Samsung learned about the customer complaints," Martini
wrote.  "Nor does the SAC provide facts suggesting fraudulent
concealment beginning in 2006.  Ultimately, plaintiffs' allegation
that Samsung discovered the defect in 2006 is based on just two
confirmed customer complaints and two unconfirmed reports posted
on internet websites.  'Awareness of a few customer complaints . .
. does not establish knowledge of an alleged defect.'"

Martini dismissed the class's claims for fraudulent inducement,
violation of consumer protection laws and breach of warranty under
Minnesota law, but he preserved the warranty count under Ohio law.

"Jo Anna Frager, the named plaintiff from Ohio, is an ordinary
consumer who lacks privity with Samsung," the judge wrote.  "Under
Ohio law, there is a 'general rule [that] 'a plaintiff who has
suffered only economic loss due to another's negligence has not
been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or
compensable.''  But the rule does not apply to ''ordinary
consumers' who lack privity with a product's manufacturer.'
Accordingly, the economic loss doctrine does not bar plaintiffs'
claim for tortuous breach of implied warranty under Ohio law."

The court also found it premature to strike the class allegations.

Martini gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Appeal Still Pending in "Minnick" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a final judgment and settlement order in a class
action lawsuit by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et
al.). involving Clearwire U.S. LLC remains pending, according to
Sprint Nextel Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Sprint entered into a merger agreement with
Clearwire Corporation.

The Company states: "In April 2009, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in
King County, Washington by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad
Minnick, et al.). The lawsuit generally alleges that we
disseminated false advertising about the quality and reliability
of our services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee, which
we refer to as ETF; and invoked allegedly unconscionable
provisions of our Terms of Service to the detriment of
subscribers. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination
that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis; an
order declaring certain provisions of our Terms of Service,
including the ETF provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction
prohibiting us from collecting ETFs and further false advertising;
restitution of any ETFs paid by our subscribers; equitable relief;
and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint adding seven
additional plaintiffs. We removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington. On July 23,
2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
Court stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and on
February 2, 2010, granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On
March 29, 2011 the Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying
Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on
a question of Washington state law. On
May 23, 2012, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision
holding that an ETF is a permissible alternative performance
provision. The Court of Appeals has stayed the matter.

"The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 19,
2012, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered final judgment. On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed
the Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. We have accrued an estimated amount we
anticipate to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.
The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in "Kwan" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting final approval of a settlement
of a class action lawsuit brought by representative plaintiff Rosa
Kwan, according to Sprint Nextel Corporation's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Sprint entered into a merger agreement with
Clearwire Corporation.

The Company states: "In September 2009, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against Clearwire in King County Superior Court,
brought by representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan. The complaint
alleges we placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law. On October 1, 2009, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington. The parties
stipulated to allow a Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs
filed on December 23, 2009. We then filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court granted our
motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with
prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to further amend the
complaint. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding
additional state law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a
purported collection agency, as a co-defendant. On January 27,
2011, the court granted the parties' stipulation allowing
plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint adding two new class
representatives. We then filed motions to compel the newly-added
customer plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims. On
January 3, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice our motions to
compel arbitration because of factual issues to be resolved at an
evidentiary hearing. The parties stipulated to allow a Fifth
Amended Complaint.

"The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 27, 2012,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. We have
accrued an estimated amount we anticipate to pay for the
settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is
considered immaterial to the financial statements. If the Court
does not grant final approval of the settlement, this case will
remain in the early stages of litigation and its outcome is
unknown."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Appeal Still Pending in "Dennings" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a final judgment and settlement order in a class
action lawsuit by Angelo Dennings involving Clearwire remains
pending, according to Sprint Nextel Corporation's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Sprint entered into a merger agreement with
Clearwire Corporation.

The Company states: "In November 2010, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
complaint generally alleges we slow network speeds when network
demand is highest and that such network management violates our
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's
advertising and marketing claims. Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, we charge an ETF or restocking fee that they claim is
unconscionable under the circumstances. The claims asserted
include breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek class
certification; unspecified damages and restitution; a declaratory
judgment that Clearwire's ETF and restocking fee are
unconscionable under the alleged circumstances; an injunction
prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged deceptive marketing
and from charging ETFs; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.
On January 13, 2011, we filed concurrent motions to compel
arbitration and in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In
response to Clearwire's motions, plaintiff abandoned its fraud
claim and amended its complaint with fourteen additional
plaintiffs in eight separate jurisdictions. Plaintiff further
added new claims of violation of Consumer Protection statutes
under various state laws. On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed
concurrent motions to (1) compel the newly-added plaintiffs to
arbitrate their individual claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this
case pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, which we refer to as
Concepcion, and (3) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs did not
oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the litigation pending
Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay the litigation.

"The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 19, 2012,
the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered
final judgment. On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed the
Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. We have accrued an estimated amount we
anticipate to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.
The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Appeal Still Pending in "Newton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a final judgment and settlement order in a class
action lawsuit, Newton v. Clearwire, remains pending, according to
Sprint Nextel Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Sprint entered into a merger agreement with
Clearwire Corporation.

The Company states: "In March 2011, a purported class action was
filed against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic],
alleges Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements
of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading.
Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with
customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised.
Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's
network management practices. Plaintiff seeks class certification;
declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified restitution and/or
disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire service; and unspecified
damages, interest, fees and costs. On June 9, 2011, Clearwire
filed a motion to compel arbitration.

"The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On December 19, 2012,
the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered
final judgment. On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed the
Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. We have accrued an estimated amount we
anticipate to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.
The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Clearwire Continues to Defend "Wuest" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by Richard Wuest, according to Sprint Nextel
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Sprint entered into a merger agreement with
Clearwire Corporation.

In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action
against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco
County. Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's
Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Section 632.7,
which prohibits the recording of communications made from a
cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties
to the communication. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and
injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, pre and post judgment
interest. Clearwire removed the matter to federal court. On
November 2, 2012, Clearwire filed an answer to the complaint. The
litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an
estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation continues to defend itself against
purported shareholder class actions in Delaware, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 15, 2012, Sprint entered into the Merger Agreement with
SoftBank, Starburst I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank (HoldCo), Starburst II, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of
HoldCo (Parent), and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas corporation and
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub and,
together with SoftBank, HoldCo, Parent, the "SoftBank Entities"),
pursuant to which, at the effective time of the Merger (Effective
Time), Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent (SoftBank Merger). Upon consummation of the SoftBank
Merger, Parent will be renamed Sprint Corporation (New Sprint).

The Company states: "On December 12, 2012, stockholder Crest
Financial Limited, which we refer to as Crest, filed a putative
class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco LLC and Eagle River,
purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company. On December 14, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and on January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint. Also, on December 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed
a motion seeking an expedited trial. Following a hearing on
January 10, 2013, the Court denied the motion to expedite without
prejudice. The Court also directed the parties to consolidate this
lawsuit with the other Delaware actions. The lawsuit alleges that
the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed transaction between Sprint and the
Company, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to the
Company's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status as
controlling stockholders, including with respect to the SoftBank
Transaction, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and Eagle River. The lawsuit
also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the
Company, and that the controlling stockholders acted to enrich
themselves at the expense of the minority stockholders. The
lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin the SoftBank Transaction,
permanently enjoin the Proposed Merger, permanently enjoin Sprint
from allegedly interfering with the Company's plans to raise
capital or sell its spectrum and to recover compensatory damages.
This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and
an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

"On December 20, 2012, stockholder Abraham Katsman filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Sprint and SoftBank,
purportedly bought on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's public
stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling
stockholder, and that SoftBank aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of the
Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration
undervalues the Company and that the Proposed Merger was
negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be
consummated, rescission of the Proposed Merger, and to recover
unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This litigation
is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of
any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

"On December 28, 2012, stockholder Kenneth L. Feigeles filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle
River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's public
stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling
stockholder, and that the Company, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle
River aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Sprint and the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges
that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, and that
the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process.
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the
Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger,
and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This
litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an
estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

"On December 28, 2012, stockholder Joan Litwin filed a putative
class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco and Eagle River,
purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to the
Company's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status as
controlling stockholders, and that the Company aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint, Eagle River and
the directors of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the
Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that Sprint is using
its position as controlling stockholder to obtain the Company's
spectrum for itself to the detriment of the public stockholders,
and that the directors of the Company allowed the Company to
stagnate to benefit Sprint and Eagle River. The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be
consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger. The lawsuit also
seeks to enjoin Sprint from interfering with the Company's build-
out plans or any future sale of spectrum, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages. This litigation is in the early stages, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot
be made at this time.

"On or about January 3, 2013, stockholder David DeLeo filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub,
purportedly brought on behalf of our public stockholders of the
Company. The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's public
stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling
stockholder, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors
of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger
Consideration undervalues the Company, that Sprint and the
directors of the Company misappropriated non-public information
that was not disclosed to the plaintiffs, and that the Proposed
Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process. The lawsuit
seeks a declaratory judgment that the proposed transaction between
Sprint and the Company was entered into in breach of Sprint's
fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the proposed
transaction between Sprint and the Company and, should the
Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger,
and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. This
litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an
estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Still Defending Shareholder Suits in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation continues to defend itself against
purported shareholder class actions in Washington, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 17, 2012, we entered into an
agreement and plan of merger with Sprint, which we refer to as the
Merger Agreement, pursuant to which Sprint agreed to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Clearwire Corporation Class A and
Class B common stock, which we refer to as Class A Common Stock
and Class B Common Stock, respectively, not currently owned by
Sprint, SOFTBANK CORP., which we refer to as Softbank, or their
affiliates. At the closing, the outstanding shares of common stock
will be canceled and converted automatically into the right to
receive $2.97 per share in cash, without interest. Our
stockholders will be asked to vote on the adoption of the Merger
Agreement at a special meeting that will be held on a date to be
announced. Consummation of the transactions under the Merger
Agreement, which we refer to as the Proposed Merger, is subject to
a number of conditions precedent, including, among others: (i) the
adoption of the Merger Agreement by the holders of at least 75% of
the outstanding shares of our common stock entitled to vote on the
Proposed Merger, voting as a single class, and at least a majority
of the outstanding shares of our common stock not held by Sprint,
SoftBank and their respective affiliates, voting as a single
class, at a duly called stockholders' meeting, which we refer to
as the Clearwire Stockholder Approval, (ii) the receipt of the
Federal Communications Commission, which we refer to as the FCC,
approvals required to consummate the Proposed Merger, (iii) the
absence of any order enjoining the consummation of, or
prohibiting, the Proposed Merger; (iv) the non-occurrence of any
event having a material adverse effect from the date of the Merger
Agreement to the closing of the Proposed Merger, and (v) the
consummation by Sprint of the pending merger between Sprint and
SoftBank and certain affiliates thereof, which we refer to as the
SoftBank Transaction, or an alternate transaction thereto.

"On December 20, 2012, stockholder Joe Kuhnle filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County, against the Company and its directors, purportedly brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, which action
we refer to as the Kuhnle Action. The Kuhnle Action alleges that
the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Proposed Merger, and that the Company aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of the Company. The Kuhnle Action also alleges that the
Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that the Proposed
Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, that the deal
protection devices favor Sprint to the detriment of the public
stockholders, and that the directors of the Company failed to make
necessary disclosures in their public filings. The Kuhnle Action
seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered
into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, a preliminary
injunction preventing the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed
Merger be consummated, rescission of the Proposed Merger, and to
recover unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages. On
January 18, 2013, we and the other defendants collectively filed a
motion to dismiss or stay the Kuhnle Action in favor of the prior-
filed Delaware Actions. On January 18, 2013, we and the other
defendants opposed plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery. On
February 11, 2013, the court granted the motion to stay. On
January 22, 2013, the parties stipulated to consolidate the three
King County lawsuits -- the Kuhnle Action, along with both the
Millen Action and the Rowe Action -- into one matter: In Re
Clearwire Corporation Shareholder Litigation. This litigation is
in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential losses cannot be made at this time.

"On December 20, 2012, stockholder Doug Millen filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County against the Company and its directors, purportedly brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, which action
we refer to as the Millen Action. The lawsuit alleges that the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the Company's public stockholders in connection with the Proposed
Merger, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The
lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the
Company, that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an
unfair process, that the deal protection devices favor Sprint to
the detriment of the public stockholders, and that the directors
of the Company failed to make necessary disclosures in connection
with the announcement of the transaction. The lawsuit seeks a
declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered into in
breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing
the Proposed Merger, and rescission of the Proposed Merger to the
extent it has already been consummated.  This litigation is in the
early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential losses cannot be made at this time.

"On December 31, 2012, stockholder Clinton Rowe filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub,
purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company, which action we refer to as the Rowe Action. The lawsuit
alleges that Sprint and the directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, and
that the Company, Sprint and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the
Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration
undervalues the Company, that the Proposed Merger was negotiated
pursuant to an unfair process, and that the directors of the
Company did not protect the Company against numerous conflicts of
interest. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Proposed Merger was entered into in breach of defendants'
fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the Proposed Merger,
rescission of the transaction to the extent it has already been
implemented, and the imposition of a constructive trust in favor
of the plaintiff class upon any benefits improperly received by
defendants. This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is
unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at
this time."


SWREG: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SWReG, Sempris, and Digital
River defraud people who make online purchases by secretly
charging them monthly fees, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


TELMEX: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Protection Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Barrera and Dave Graham, writing for Reuters, report that
the Mexican government's consumer protection agency said on
March 31 it had opened a class action lawsuit against Carlos
Slim's fixed line phone company Telmex for making illegal charges.

Rafael Ochoa, a legal expert at the federal prosecutor's office
for the consumer (Profeco), said Telmex had made unwarranted
charges for a privacy service and that Profeco had filed the suit
with a federal civil court in Mexico City.

Profeco took the step after noticing that Telmex was charging
users some 10.40 pesos (55 pence) a month for a data protection
service that was a constitutional right, said Mr. Ochoa.

It was unclear how many customers could join the suit and how much
Telmex might be liable for, he noted.

"There's still not a precise estimate," Mr. Ochoa said, noting the
period under scrutiny began in March 2012.  He added that he
expected a judge to rule on the case in around six months.

Telmex did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Slim, the world's richest man, controls roughly 80% of Mexico's
fixed line phone market and 70% of the country's mobile business
through his giant phone company America Movil, of which Telmex is
a part.

In February, Mexico's competition watchdog Cofeco said it would
fine Telmex $52 million (GBP34 million) for monopolistic
practices.

Mr. Slim's companies have successfully fought off a number of
lawsuits in the past, but the billionaire is facing tougher
regulation from President Enrique Pena Nieto's government.

On March 11, Pena Nieto unveiled the biggest planned shake-up of
the Mexican telecommunications market in decades, a sweeping
reform that aims to boost competition and give regulators the
power to make dominant players sell assets.


UNITED STATES: Stillwater May Join Class v. FAA Over Tower Closure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Day, writing for NewsPress, reports that Stillwater city
councilors will consider a way to save the control tower at
Stillwater Regional Airport.

This one is a lawsuit.

City Attorney John Dorman is asking the City Council for an
executive session to discuss joining a lawsuit against the Federal
Aviation Administration and its administrator, Michael P. Huerta.

The executive session was scheduled during the April 1 City
Council meeting, which starts at 5:30 p.m. at the Stillwater
Municipal Building, 723 S. Lewis.  Councilors could return into
regular session to discuss the issue and possibly vote on joining
the class-action suit.

Mr. Huerta and the FAA ordered nearly 150 airport control towers
closed nationwide as part the spending cuts required under
sequestration.

The Stillwater airport is the fifth busiest in Oklahoma.  It
appealed the FFA's decision, but lost.  The tower is expected to
close sometime in April.  It will save the federal government
nearly $500,000.

Several airports across the U.S. have filed lawsuits to stop the
tower closings.  Airports in Illinois, Washington and Florida
filed independent suits.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals combined all the lawsuits into
one -- Spokane Airport Board v. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator,
and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The tower closings doesn't mean airports must close.  All pilots
are required to know how to land at uncontrolled airports and to
practice the procedures.

Stillwater Regional Airport Manager Gary Johnson has said closing
the towers eliminates an extra layer of safety during critical
stages of flight -- takeoff and landing.  It will make flying more
hazardous and reverse years of progress that has made the U.S.
aviation network the safest in the world.

The airport, Mr. Johnson said, doesn't anticipate restricting
flights if the tower closes.  Oklahoma State University athletic
teams could fly in and out of the airport on road trips.

Military planes will be forbidden to stop at the Stillwater
airport if the tower closes.  The armed forces require military
planes to take off and land at tower-controlled airports.
Military planes comprise 30% of the Stillwater airport's jet fuel
sales.

Stillwater is scrambling to keep the tower open.

The city created a $500,000 contingency fund in its latest budget.
Approximately $100,000 of the fund has been used, City Manager Dan
Galloway said at the March 18 meeting when approximately $50,000
was removed from the fund to equip a fitness center for city
workers and their spouses.

Stillwater Mayor John Bartley has said the City Council will need
to discuss city priorities before deciding its next move regarding
tower closures.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Faces Suit Over Denying Petitions
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
23 people from China claim they invested $500,000 apiece in a
business in economically depressed Delano that would create 10
jobs apiece, but U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services denied
their immigrant investor petitions anyway.


VERIZON COMMS: Judge Certifies Retirees' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
certified a class of Verizon retirees who challenged the company's
transfer of more than $8.5 billion in assets and dumping of 41,000
federally protected pensions into annuities.

Verizon Communications announced the purchase of the annuity plan
in October 2012. C. William Jones, president and executive
director of the Association of BellTel Retirees Inc., says the
pension money has been transferred into an account containing
funds from other companies.

"We have no idea the health of that particular account," Jones
said Monday.  "How well funded are the other annuities that are
comingled with ours? We will get no reports on the health of that
part of the Prudential business."

Lead plaintiff William Lee, on behalf of beneficiaries of the
Verizon Management Pension Plan, sued Verizon, five of its
affiliates and Prudential in November 2012.

The plaintiffs said the "unprecedented" action violates the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and protections under the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

"Verizon, one of the most financially successful U.S.
corporations, intends to 'de-risk,' or abandon, its long-term
responsibility for financing and paying the pension obligations of
41,000 retirees, simply to enhance its corporate credit rating"
the 40-page complaint stated.  "Verizon is taking advantage of the
group of retirees least able to defend themselves. Verizon is not
engaging in the same or similar action with respect to
nonmanagement employees or those management retirees formerly
represented by unions."

Making Prudential the lone insurer to issue the annuities puts
retirees at risk if Prudential is faced with "some future
unexpected and catastrophic event that could place many retirees
and their beneficiaries in potential financial ruinous
circumstances," according to the complaint.

"Prudential is not too big to fail," the action stated.  "If the
current economic situation has taught retirees anything, it is
that the funded status of a behemoth insurer can change in an
instant and cause devastating economic harm for the whole
country."

U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater ordered the certification on
March 28, certifying one class of 41,000 management retirees who
are now receiving annuity payments from The Prudential Insurance
Co. of America.

The judge also certified a second class of 50,000 retirees who did
not have their pensions transferred to Prudential and claim
Verizon improperly used plan assets to pay excessive costs and
expenses.  They say the company should have paid these costs out
of operating revenues, not pension plan funds.

In both classes, Fitzwater said that the numerosity of the
plaintiffs made joinder of all members impracticable.

The beneficiaries warned in a statement Monday what would happen
if Prudential or a successor experiences a default.  In that
scenario, the previous protections would be replaced by a
"patchwork network" of underfunded, insurance-industry-controlled
state guaranty associations, according to the statement.

"Insurance annuities are backed only by insufficient and varying
coverage -- generally determined by state of residence at the time
of impairment -- from $100,000 - $500,000 (lifetime per person
cap)," the statement added.  "Guaranty associations in eight
states and one U.S. territory limit total lifetime coverage for
annuity holders to a maximum of $100,000; 28 states go up to
$250,000 lifetime coverage; 10 states and District of Columbia use
a $300,000 ceiling; and just four offer a ceiling of $500,000."

The plaintiffs say no other corporation has transferred already
retired persons from an ERISA-protected and PBGC-guaranteed
pension plan into a group insurance annuity while keeping the
pension plan ongoing for others.

"This case is likely to be closely watched by employee benefits
leaders at thousands of companies across America, with the outcome
impacting the management of trillions of dollars in ERISA
protected pension assets, clarifying plan sponsor and plan
fiduciary obligations, and underscoring the rights of plan
participants," said plaintiffs' attorney Curtis Kennedy in Denver
on Monday.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for ERISA
violations.  They are also represented by Robert Goodman with
Kilgore Kilgore in Dallas.


WASHINGTON POST: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Plumbers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Company is awaiting a ruling on a motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the Plumbers Local #200
Pension Fund, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

A purported class-action complaint was filed against the Company,
Donald E. Graham and Hal S. Jones on October 28, 2010, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Plumbers Local
#200 Pension Fund. The complaint alleged that the Company and
certain of its officers made materially false and misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts relating to KHE,
in violation of the U.S. Federal securities laws. The complaint
sought damages, attorneys' fees, costs and equitable/injunctive
relief. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint, and on
December 23, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the case with prejudice. On January 25, 2012, the
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend or alter that
final judgment, which the court granted in part on March 13,
2012 by allowing the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On
May 11, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The parties await a ruling on the motion to dismiss.


WASHINGTON POST: Awaits Ruling on Settlement in Reviewers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Company is awaiting a ruling on a motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the Plumbers Local #200
Pension Fund, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 6, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses from July 2006 onward
alleging antitrust claims against Kaplan and West Publishing
Corporation, BAR/BRI's former owner. On April 10, 2008, the court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss, a decision that was
reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 7,
2011.The Ninth Circuit also referred the matter to a mediator for
the purpose of exploring a settlement.  In the fourth quarter of
2012, the parties reached a comprehensive agreement to settle the
matter.  The settlement is expected to be presented to the
District Court for approval in the first quarter of 2013.


WEST PUBLISHING: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for April 15
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the second time was the charm for a settlement in a class
action alleging that law school students paid too much for BAR/BRI
bar review preparatory course materials after West Publishing
Corp. and Kaplan Inc. conspired to monopolize the market.

A fresh agreement provides for a payment of $9.5 million in cash.
Lawyers told U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles, who
rejected a previous settlement in 2011, that they would file
documents by March 18 seeking preliminary approval of the new
deal.

Judge Real scheduled a hearing for April 15.

Plaintiffs attorney Alan Harris, a partner at Los Angeles-based
Harris & Ruble, did not return a call for comment.  John
Shaughnessy, a spokesman for West's parent corporation, Thomson
Reuters Corp., and Kaplan spokeswoman Carina Wong did not respond
to requests for comment.

The case, filed on February 6, 2008, is distinct from a $49
million class settlement against West and Kaplan Inc. that Real
approved in 2007.  That case, filed in 2005, involved a class of
300,000 students who claimed they were overcharged by about $1,000
for the preparatory course for the Law School Aptitude Test after
West and Kaplan conspired to monopolize the market in violation of
the Sherman Act.  Under that settlement, which involved purchases
from 1997 and 2006, each student was to receive $125.

Both cases were filed by Eliot Disner, who was ousted from his
former firm, McGuireWoods, after objecting to the first
settlement.  Mr. Disner died in 2009.  On August 10, the U.S.
Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit upheld Real's decision to
deny attorney fees to McGuireWoods for the older case, citing the
firm's "egregious" ethical violation in failing to disclose to
class members that incentive awards based on the settlement's
value would go to named plaintiffs.

The newer case, filed on behalf of two law school graduates who
alleged they overpaid for their BAR/BRI courses and three law
students who expected to take the bar exam in 2008 and 2009,
involves those who purchased the courses as of August 1, 2006.
The suit, which also levels antitrust allegations, seeks
certification of a class of individuals who have paid for a
BAR/BRI course and another of law students who anticipate
purchasing the course.  The potential class initially was
estimated to be more than 120,000.

On April 7, 2008, Judge Real dismissed the case; the plaintiffs
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on
September 30, 2009.  The case returned to Judge Real's courtroom,
however, when both sides reached a settlement.

Judge Real preliminarily approved that deal on March 21, 2011.
But on June 20 of that year, he rejected the settlement after
objectors raised concerns that Kaplan's portion of the deal
involved coupons.  Under the initial deal, West would have paid
$5.29 million in cash and Kaplan would have provided discount
certificates worth $150 each toward the purchase of future course
materials.

Judge Real sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit.  On November
7, 2011, that court reversed his dismissal order and referred the
case to mediation.

On January 14, lawyers in the case told the Ninth Circuit they had
reached a new settlement, which they outlined in court documents
on March 7.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: New Hearing in Bid to Halt Washer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Whirlpool
Corp. will get a new hearing in its bid to stop a class action
lawsuit over moldy washing machines as the U.S. Supreme Court told
a lower court to revisit the case.

The justices on April 1 ordered reconsideration in light of an
opinion they recently issued throwing out a class action case
against Comcast Corp.

A federal appeals court let the Whirlpool case go forward as a
class action on behalf of 200,000 Ohio residents.  The suing
consumers say their front-loading washers developed a smelly
buildup of mold.

Whirlpool says a class action is inappropriate under the rules
governing federal lawsuits because the mold problem affected fewer
than 3% of the appliance manufacturer's washers.

Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Michigan, says the case is one
of nine it faces around the country over the washers.  Together,
the suits involve more than 1.5 million buyers, the company said
in its appeal.  At least seven other manufacturers and sellers of
front-loading washers are defendants in similar suits.

Philadelphia-based Comcast was accused of monopolizing its
hometown market.  The suing customers said Comcast swapped
territories and subscribers with competitors to ensure it could
control the market and charge higher prices.  Comcast has denied
the allegations.

The high court, ruling 5-4, said the customers didn't meet
requirements for outlining a common method that could be used to
determine monetary damages for each of the thousands of individual
parties to the lawsuit.

The case is Whirlpool v. Glazer, 12-322.


WIVENHOE DAM: Queensland Gov't Withholds Documents in Flood Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hedley Thomas, writing for The Australian, reports that thousands
of internal documents obtained during investigations by
Queensland's AUD15 million public inquiry into floods and the
operation of Brisbane's Wivenhoe Dam are being withheld from
public access and scrutiny for 30 years by the state government.

The controlling agency for the vast array of withheld documents
and evidence is the Department of Justice and Attorney-General,
which is also defending the government from a multi-billion-dollar
damages claim being prepared by a class-action law firm on behalf
of several thousand flood victims.

An examination by The Australian of brief summaries of some of the
documents, which are held at a secure State Archives facility,
show they include top-level correspondence, briefing notes and
unheard evidence about the conduct of senior public servants and
others involved in the Wivenhoe Dam, which was last year found by
the inquiry to have been operated in breach of its manual.

It is unclear when the decision to prevent access to the documents
was made, with the inquiry handing down its findings on the eve of
last year's election that swept Labor from power and installed
Campbell Newman's Liberal National Party government.

For the category headed "Briefing Papers", more than 300 files are
included and consist of "documents produced by or provided to the
Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of
briefing the commissioner and counsel assisting on matters
relevant to the inquiry.  Documents include formal briefing
papers, reports, memoranda and notes".

Another category, "Operational Correspondence", consists of more
than 1500 records "relating to the gathering of evidence", and
includes documents arising from the inquiry's requirement to
government departments and individuals to produce evidence.

Another series consists of research and reference material
collated by the inquiry in the course of its investigations.

The notebooks of the inquiry's commissioner, Supreme Court judge
Catherine Holmes, and the diaries of inquiry staff including
investigators are also subject to a 30-year ban on public access
and scrutiny.

The bans mean that material that could help flood victims in their
case against the Queensland government and its insurers will
remain unavailable for three decades.

The lockdown of the flood inquiry documents that could be
beneficial for flood victims in their legal class action comes
amid an ongoing parliamentary investigation into a bungle by the
state's Crime and Misconduct Commission, which released thousands
of highly sensitive documents from the Fitzgerald inquiry into
corruption in the late 1980s.

The Fitzgerald inquiry documents, however, were meant to remain
off-limits for 65 years because they identify confidential
informants and protected witnesses who gave secret information
about serious crimes, including alleged plots to murder
magistrates and police in Queensland before and during the
inquiry.

The floods inquiry, which went for 12 months and delivered its
final report to the then premier Anna Bligh in March last year,
made strong adverse findings over the operation of Wivenhoe Dam
and conduct of three of the four engineers who managed it during
the 2011 floods that devastated Brisbane and surrounding suburbs.

The inquiry found the dam was operated in breach of the manual at
a crucial stage of the flood, and there was subsequent collusion
and a cover-up to falsely purport a "facade of precision". Three
of the four flood engineers were referred to the CMC, which
determined they should not be prosecuted.

The engineers have repeatedly and strenuously denied wrongdoing,
although Mr. Newman and senior government figures have intervened
to ensure the dam has been operated differently to manage
subsequent floods.

Mr. Newman has expressed concern that the state of Queensland,
which owns and operates the dam, could be held liable for the
losses of thousands of victims of the 2011 disaster.  The proposed
class action is being managed by law firm Maurice Blackburn, which
has engaged overseas experts who have already concluded that much
of the flooding was avoidable and would have been minimized if the
dam operators had taken forecast rainfall into account.

In a statement, a spokesman for Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie
told The Australian the commission of inquiry had been conducted
by the previous government.  "However, in the interest of openness
and transparency, the Attorney-General would be willing to look at
whether any documents could be released," he said.

Mr. Bleijie, whose office has been working closely with external
lawyers for Wivenhoe Dam's insurers, QBE, and a Lloyds consortium,
could not confirm when the documents were declared off-limits and
whether any demands had been made about the evidence remaining
unavailable to flood victims.


* Brown & Heller Shuts Down After Losing Only Client
----------------------------------------------------
Daily Business Review reports that Miami law firm Brown and Heller
has suddenly shut down after losing its only client, a defendant
in a class action lawsuit tied to Bernard Madoff's monumental
investment fraud.

After 38 years in operation, the law firm informed its 47
employees that it would be closing, and March 18 was their last
day.  The lease on two floors at the One Biscayne Tower building,
the firm's home since 1975, expires April 30.

Employees will receive no COBRA health insurance but will receive
three weeks of severance pay, firm co-founder Lewis Brown said.

"I was the primary if not sole shareholder," Mr. Brown said.
"We're in a phase-down.  We had formal meetings with everyone on
Monday.  Everyone has been very understanding.  We are making sure
we ensure all our ethical obligations are met."

The firm let staffers keep their computers but not the lawyers.
Firm management sent an e-mail on March 20 that was obtained by
the Daily Business Review stating paychecks would not be issued
March 21 until "the office supplies that have been taken have been
returned."

Mr. Brown called it a "silly misunderstanding" and everyone would
be paid.  Employees are not receiving COBRA because the firm is
closing, and there is no one to administer it, he said.

Attorneys and staffers are looking for jobs, and many have
enlisted headhunters, according to sources.

Brown and Heller, formerly Gilbride Brown and Heller, specialized
in complex commercial litigation.  The firm became Brown and
Heller after Gilbride departed.

About three years ago, the firm was hired as Miami counsel for
Citco Group Ltd., an offshore company that administered the
Fairfield Greenwich and Fairfield Century funds being sued by
victims of the investment Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Madoff.

The suit, Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, was certified as a class
action lawsuit last month by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in
the Southern District of New York.

After snagging the lucrative client, Brown and Heller staffed up,
hiring numerous lawyers and paralegals.

According to one lawyer who asked not to be identified, attorneys
were working 12-hour days and weekends reviewing documents and
helping with the case.  Twenty-two lawyers were assigned to the
case and billed 240 to 270 hours a month.

The case was profitable for the firm, which billed $2 million a
month, the source said.

There was no sign of trouble late last month when Mr. Brown,
celebrating his 60th birthday, flew his four partners to Paris for
a celebration.

But Mr. Brown circulated an e-mail March 1 stating New York law
firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Whartson & Garrison was taking lead on
the case.

Sources at the firm said a rift developed between the New York
counsel and Miami counsel because Brown and Heller wanted to
appeal class certification and Paul Weiss did not.

Brad Karp, the lead Paul Weiss partner on the case, did not
respond to telephone calls and e-mails for comment by deadline.
Job Hunting

Mr. Lewis said the decision to part ways with Citco was mutual.
He said he wanted to retire to spend time with his young children.
Mr. Heller retired last year.

"It was a mutual decision," he said.  "I didn't want to spend so
much time traveling to New York any more."

Attorneys and staff were called on March 15 and informed the firm
was closing.  They were told to pick up their belongings and clean
up their files for transfer on March 18.  That morning, Mr. Brown
gave a speech thanking his employees -- some who had been with the
firm for more than 20 years.

Both lawyers and staff may have trouble finding jobs in the
shrinking legal market, said Abbe Bunt, a legal headhunter with
Bunt Legal Search of Hollywood.  She is urging employees to
consider taking jobs in Broward or Palm Beach counties and

"These people are all top notch, highly credentialed and
especially well-versed in research and writing," she said.  "That
being said there are now many lawyers on the market that will now
be competing for the same limited litigation opportunities.  My
advice would be to have writing samples ready, be flexible
geographically and be realistic about salary expectations."

Mr. Brown served as lead defense counsel in numerous shareholder
class actions, bondholder class actions, shareholder derivative
litigation, professional malpractice cases, securities
investigations and civil securities enforcement actions. Clients
included KPMG LLP, the former Coopers & Lybrand LLP, the former
Price Waterhouse & Co., the merged PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and
Andersen LLP.


* Class Action Settlements Benefit Lawyers More Than Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence W. Schonbrun, writing for American Thinker, goes over
various class action settlements to illustrate how lawyers benefit
more from the deals than the class members.  The article is
available at http://is.gd/sMVBe0

The article cites, among others, the Ford Explorer SUV class
action settlement, wherein plaintiffs' lawyers were awarded $25
million in attorneys' fees by claiming that the class members were
receiving a benefit of $500 million.  The article called the deal
"the poster child for the dysfunctional class action system",
noting that class members actually received $500 coupons towards
the purchase of a new Ford vehicle, and only 148 were redeemed for
a total value of $74,000.

The article also cites the Bank of Boston class action, wherein
class members had their accounts credited between $2.19 and $8.76
as a result of the settlement, but also had their accounts debited
with a "miscellaneous deduction" of up to $91 -- to cover the
costs of the settlement, i.e. plaintiffs' and defendants'
attorneys' fees and litigation costs.  For this so-called
"benefit" to class members, class counsel received $8.5 million in
attorneys' fees.


* Oil Companies Fear Ethanol Mandate May Spur Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Samilton, writing for NPR, reports the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency could soon issue a final ruling that aims to
force oil companies to replace E10, gasoline mixed with 10%
ethanol, with E15.

This move could come just as widespread support for ethanol, which
is made from corn, appears to be eroding.

Mike Mitchell was once a true believer in ethanol as a homegrown
solution to foreign oil imports.  He owns gas stations, and he
went further than most, installing expensive blender pumps that
let customers choose E15, E20 and all the way up to E85.

The result was a variation on the old adage, "You can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make it drink."

"We're environmental people and we kind of jumped on the bandwagon
early, and it bit us," Mr. Mitchell says.

Many car companies, especially the Detroit Three, have been making
vehicles that can use the higher blends of ethanol for more than a
decade.  They're called "flex-fuel" vehicles.

Most people who own those cars still use the lowest ethanol blend
they can find, because ethanol negatively affects gas mileage.

Philip Verleger, an economist who tracks the oil industry, says
when Congress approved the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2007,
foreign oil imports were rising.

Then came tar sands and new ways to drill for oil.

"The oil crisis is going away," Mr. Verleger says.  "We have
plenty of oil.  We have too much oil."

Mr. Verleger says the switch to E10 was driven by the Clean Air
Act to reduce smog, and it worked pretty well.

The switch to E15, however, is being driven by the renewable fuel
mandate, which directs the EPA to require a greater volume of
ethanol in gasoline every year, pretty much, no matter what.

Even some environmental groups don't like that mandate, because
corn ethanol requires so much energy and water to produce.

"The need for the ethanol program is gone," Mr. Verleger says,
"but the thing is . . . once you get something it's very hard to
undo it."

Oil companies say they're absolutely not going to put E15 into the
marketplace, and if they're forced, they'll take their product
elsewhere.

"It's my opinion that refiners have very limited choices in order
to comply," says Andy Lipow, an oil industry consultant, "and one
way to comply is to export ever-increasing amounts of gasoline and
diesel fuel, or otherwise just simply shut down the refineries."

That's a bluff, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, a
trade group for the corn ethanol industry.  Its president, Bob
Dinneen, says the EPA should call that bluff.

Mr. Dineen says this is the way Congress envisioned the mandate
working: more and more ethanol over time in a gallon of fuel, and
less and less petroleum.

"This is about market share," Mr. Dinneen says.  "This is about
their profitability; it's not any more complicated than that."

The problem is that the mandate applies only to the oil companies,
not the people who blend the ethanol into the gas, and not the gas
stations that buy the blended product.

There's that "horse to water" problem again.  Because half of all
gas stations are completely independent of the oil companies, they
could just keep ordering lower-ethanol gas, and they probably
will.

Even though the EPA says E15 is safe for any car built after 2001,
car companies insist that it isn't.

"There is no guarantee that fuel will work properly in your
vehicle," says Brent Bailey.  Mr. Bailey heads a research group
that has done 20 studies on the effects of higher-ethanol blends
on nonflex-fuel cars.  He says while most cars will probably be
fine, it's "a little bit like Russian roulette."

"You may have plenty of blanks out there, but then there might be
some damage in certain cases," Mr. Bailey says.

While that might make for an interesting experiment, oil
companies, car companies and gas stations are worried about class-
action lawsuits.

The petroleum industry is doing everything it can to postpone a
showdown.  If the EPA approves the increase, and if the refineries
comply, E15 may show up in local gas stations sometime next year.


                             *********

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  * * *