CAR_Public/130411.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 71

                             Headlines



AFFYMAX INC: Facing Derivative Suit Over OMONTYS(R) Recall
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Releases Statement About Beer Class Action
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Former Employee Faces Trade Secrets Suit
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Monopoly

AUDIENCE INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suit in California
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Rejects Foreclosure Class Action
BIG LOTS: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Due April 4
BROADWIND ENERGY: In Settlement Talks Over Shareholder Class Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Still Ongoing in Consumer Suit

CANADIAN SOLAR: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces $182MM Suit for Ignoring Smart Meters
CONVERGYS CORP: May Appeal Denial of Motion to Strike Class Suit
DEBEERS DIAMOND: Consumers Set to Get Settlement Checks
DUN & BRADSTREET: Continues to Defend "Martin" Suit in Illinois

DUN & BRADSTREET: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "O&R" Suit
EXPRESS INC: Settled Illinois Wage-and-Hour Class Action in Jan.
FANNIE MAE: Still Facing Securities Litigation in D.C. Court
FANNIE MAE: 2008 Securities Litigation Still in Discovery Phase
FANNIE MAE: 2008 ERISA Litigation Still in Discovery Phase

FANNIE MAE: Discovery Ongoing in CIS v. Mudd, Et Al.
FANNIE MAE: Discovery Ongoing in Smith v. Fannie Mae, Et Al.
FANNIE MAE: Class Status Sought in Transfer Tax Litigation
FIBRIA CELULOSE: Ratified Pact to Settle Securities Suit in Dec.
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Suit Over Data Breach Dismissed in March

GOOGLE INC: Suits Over Automated Gmail Email Scanning Consolidated
H&R BLOCK: Parker Waichman Files Class Action Over Tax Returns
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Has Claim Against BP in Deepwater Horizon Suit
IDAHO: Constitutionality of Student School Fees Challenged
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Court Okay of Tentative Settlement

IMMUCOR INC: June 6 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appraisers File Overtime Policy Class Action
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Employment-Related Suits
MCDONALD'S CORP: Attorney Objects to Accord in Non-Halal Suit
MEDIFAST INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action

MHN GOVERNMENT: Bid to Compel Arbitration in MFLCs' Suit Denied
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Claims in "Kramer" Suit Dismissed in October
MONEYGRAM INT'L: To Distribute "Pittman" Settlement Funds by 2Q
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: June Hearing for Student Athletes' Suit

NEW LEAF: To Defend Against Suit Over Lead Content in Products
NEW YORK, NY: Senator Adams Testifies in Stop-and-Frisk Suit
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS: Status Hearing for Fund Suit on April 19
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Conference in Securities Suit Set for Aug. 22
OREGON: DoJ Files Motion to Intervenes in Disabilities Suit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Continues to Defend TCPA Litigation
ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
SEQUENOM INC: Issued 6.4MM Shares in December 2010 Under Accord
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Agreed to Pay "Karayan" Suit Plaintiff
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation

SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Relieved of Liability in "Sager" Suit
UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Consolidated RICO Suit
UNITED ONLINE: Distribution in "Michaels" Suit Completed in March
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Franchisees' Suit in Calif.
UNITED PARCEL: Defends Suits in Canada Over Inadequate Disclosure

UNITED PARCEL: Intends to Pursue Dismissal of Suit in New York
UNITED STATES: Army Corps of Engineers Sued Over Flooding
UNITED STATES: Sioux City Join Won't Flooding Class Action
UNITED STATES: Airport Managers Have Yet to Decide on FAA Suit
VISA INC: Settlement Proponents Balk at Merchants' Websites

VOLVO: Judge Allows Sunroof Class Action to Proceed
ZIONS BANCORP: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits
ZIPCAR INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Reed" Suit Remains Pending
ZIPCAR INC: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Merger-Related Suits


                             *********


AFFYMAX INC: Facing Derivative Suit Over OMONTYS(R) Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Affymax Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, that on March 19, 2013, a derivative
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the Company in
California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara naming
certain of Affymax officers and directors as defendants.  The
lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company's officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties related to the clinical
trials for OMONTYS(R) and for representations regarding the
Company's business health, which was tied to the success of
OMONTYS.  The lawsuits also asserts claims for unjust enrichment
and corporate waste.

On February 27, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants Affymax, Inc., certain of its
officers, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Global Research &
Development Center, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2013).

A second complaint naming the same defendants was filed March 6,
2013.

The complaints, filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the
Company, allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the defendants regarding the Company's business
practices, financial projections and other disclosures between
December 8, 2011 and February 22, 2013, or the Class Period.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the Class Period and seeks
damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by
the Court.

Affymax said additional complaints may be filed against the
Company and its directors and officers related to the recall of
OMONTYS.

"Our management believes that we have meritorious defenses and
intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, these
lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost
may be significant, and we may not prevail. We believe we are
entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance policies,
subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to
be insufficient," Affymax said.

Affymax is a biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering,
developing and delivering innovative therapies that improve the
lives of patients with kidney disease and other serious and often
life-threatening illnesses.  In March 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approved Affymax's first product, OMONTYS
(peginesatide) Injection for the treatment of anemia due to
chronic kidney disease in adult patients on dialysis.

OMONTYS is a synthetic, peptide-based erythropoiesis stimulating
agent designed to stimulate production of red blood cells.
Affymax's product is the only once-monthly ESA that has been
available to the adult dialysis patient population in the U.S.

In 2012, Affymax co-commercialized OMONTYS in the U.S. with
collaboration partner, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, the
largest pharmaceutical company in Japan.

In February 2013 and in consultation with the FDA, Affymax and
Takeda voluntarily recalled OMONTYS nationwide from the market as
a result of post-marketing reports regarding serious
hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, which can be
life-threatening or fatal.  In connection with the recall, Affymax
and Takeda suspended all promotional and marketing activities for
OMONTYS.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.  The
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in federal district court.  The
court ordered all defendants to respond to the refiled complaints
in October 2011.  In March 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion for dismissal on several grounds, including the doctrine of
collateral estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.
The Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

No further updates were reported in American Electric Power
Company, Inc.'s February 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company says it will continue to defend against the claims.
The Company is unable to determine a range of potential losses
that are reasonably possible of occurring.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc. -- http://www.aep.com/-- was incorporated in New York in
1906 and reorganized in 1925.  The Company is a public utility
holding company that owns, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its public utility subsidiaries and
varying percentages of other subsidiaries.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Releases Statement About Beer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandie Piper, writing for KSDK, reports that Anheuser-Busch has
released a statement regarding a class-action lawsuit against the
company.  Peter Kraemer, vice president of brewing and supply,
says former employee Jim Clark "improperly used and
misrepresented" confidential information for personal gain.

Mr. Kraemer says there was never a complaint filed regarding
accusations of the company cutting the stated alcohol content by
3% to 8%.

NewsChannel 5's I-Team hired St. Louis Testing Labs to test the
alcohol content of Budweiser and Coors beers in February.  The
tests showed both beers contained their stated alcohol content
of 5%.

Here is Mr. Kraemer's full statement:

"Jim Clark is a former employee, now a California lawyer, who is
working with the lawyers who brought several class-action lawsuits
against Anheuser-Busch.  We believe Clark improperly used and
misrepresented our confidential information to instigate these
lawsuits, all for his personal gain.  We will take all legal means
to stop him.

"Our company has a formal process for employees to make complaints
confidentially through a third-party, yet none was ever filed on
this matter.  We believe this was an orchestrated effort by Clark
to misrepresent our processes and smear our company and brands,
yet knowing fully that the company complies with all alcohol
labeling laws and adheres to the highest standards in brewing.

"We don't disclose our recipes, intellectual property or other key
competitive information, which are vital to our operation and
competitiveness.  Our employees understand this and sign
agreements to protect information like this, which is standard in
most companies.

"We would never compromise the quality or the taste of any of our
beers for any reason.  Producing the highest-quality beer is the
basis for everything we do.

"The class-action lawsuits are groundless and the claims against
Anheuser-Busch are completely false."


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Former Employee Faces Trade Secrets Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Logan, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that a
former employee of Anheuser-Busch InBev says the big brewer is
suing him as punishment for his role in the recent class-action
suits alleging that the company waters down its beer.

James Clark, a 14-year A-B veteran who left the company in 2012,
claims in court papers filed on March 29 that a trade secrets
lawsuit the company filed against him March 1 was retribution for
his role in the watery-beer suits, which garnered nationwide
negative press against A-B when they were filed in February.

A-B's suit, which claims Mr. Clark violated confidentiality
agreements he signed when leaving the company and refused to sign
documents certifying otherwise, does not mention the watery-beer
lawsuit.  But in a response filed on March 29 in federal court in
San Francisco, Mr. Clark -- who became an attorney after leaving
A-B -- said he was "actively involved" in the class-action
lawsuits, though he did not himself file them.

Mr. Clark also says he complained about alcohol content to "at
least 20 senior managers" during his years at A-B, where he worked
at five breweries, including St. Louis, and eventually became a
director of operations.

Mr. Clark also says that when he approached A-B about settling the
case, he was told they would do so if he told the company what he
had shared with attorneys in the class-action suit and shared the
names of other current or former employees who had cooperated with
them.  He claims A-B's suit was intended to intimidate employees
"from reporting any of its wrongdoing."

In a statement late on April 1, Anheuser-Busch said both the
watery-beer lawsuits were "groundless" and Clark's claims
"completely false."

"We believe Clark improperly used and misrepresented our
confidential information to instigate these lawsuits, all for his
personal gain," said Peter Kraemer, A-B's vice president of
brewing and supply.  "We will take all legal means to stop him."


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Anthem Blue Cross
was hit with a putative class action in California state court on
March 29, accusing it of engaging in a scheme to monopolize the
state's health insurance market and using its market power to
overcharge its customers.  According to plaintiff Judy Sheridan,
an Anthem Blue Cross customer, the company -- a subsidiary of
WellPoint Inc. -- has engaged in a conspiracy with the 37 other
companies that make up the nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association.


AUDIENCE INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audience, Inc. continues to defend itself against a shareholder
class action lawsuit related to its initial public offering,
according to the Company's March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of its IPO.  The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
issued in or traceable to the IPO and contains claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission and
attorney's fees and costs. Pursuant to a scheduling order agreed
to by the parties, the Company anticipated filing a response to
the complaint in March 2013.  The Company believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to
vigorously contest the action.  However, there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense and it cannot
currently estimate a range of any possible losses it may
experience in connection with this case.  Accordingly, the Company
is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this complaint
on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Headquartered in Mountain View, California, Audience, Inc. --
http://www.audience.com/-- is a provider of intelligent voice and
audio solutions that improve voice quality and the user experience
in mobile devices.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Rejects Foreclosure Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on April 1 tossed a putative class action accusing
Bank of America Corp. of prematurely initiating foreclosure
proceedings and fraudulently signing foreclosure documents, saying
the plaintiff hadn't sufficiently backed up his claims.  U.S.
District Judge Katharine S. Hayden sided with Bank of America,
saying plaintiff Jose Grullon's claims that the bank violated New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act fell short because Mr. Grullon failed
to prove the bank foreclosed on his home improperly, or that the
"robosigning" of his foreclosure documents constituted fraud.


BIG LOTS: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Due April 4
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots Inc. said in a Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal
year ended February 2, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, that the lead plaintiff in a
securities class action lawsuit was expected to file an amended
complaint by April 4.

The class action was filed July 9, 2012, in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who
acquired the Company's common shares between February 2, 2012 and
April 23, 2012.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company, Lisa
M. Bachmann, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer; Joe R. Cooper, Executive Vice President and
President of Big Lots Canada, Inc.; Steven S. Fishman, the
Company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President; and
Charles W. Haubiel II, the Company's Executive Vice President,
Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary.

The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that
the defendants made statements concerning our financial
performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses.  No response to the
original complaint was required.

The Company said the defendants are to respond to the amended
complaint within 30 days.

"We believe that these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in
these lawsuits. While a loss from these lawsuits is reasonably
possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount
of any loss that may result or whether the lawsuits will have a
material impact on our financial statements," the Company said.

Columbus, Ohio-based Big Lots Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/
-- is North America's largest broadline closeout retailer.  At
February 2, 2013, the Company operated a total of 1,574 stores in
two countries: the United States of America and Canada.


BROADWIND ENERGY: In Settlement Talks Over Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwind Energy, Inc., is currently engaged in negotiating
settlement documents related to a class action lawsuit purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common 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.

On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers and directors. The lawsuit was
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 17, 2009 and August 9, 2010. A lead
plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on
September 13, 2011. The amended complaint named as additional
defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors,
certain Tontine entities, and Jeffrey Gendell, a principal of
Tontine. The complaint sought to allege that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by issuing or causing to be issued a series of allegedly false
and/or misleading statements concerning the Company's financial
results, operations, and prospects, including with respect to the
January 2010 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statements were
false and misleading because, among other things, the Company's
reported financial results during the class period allegedly
violated generally accepted accounting principles because they
failed to reflect the impairment of goodwill and other intangible
assets, and the Company allegedly failed to disclose known trends
and other information regarding certain customer relationships at
Brad Foote. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs relied in
part upon six alleged confidential informants, all of whom are
alleged to be former employees of the Company. On November 18,
2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2012,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion.
The Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against each of the
named current and former officers except for J. Cameron Drecoll
and held that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for any
alleged misstatements made after March 19, 2010. In addition, the
Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against the named
Tontine entities and Mr. Gendell. The Court denied the motion with
respect to certain of the claims asserted against the Company and
Mr. Drecoll. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses
on May 21, 2012. On June 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification which is not fully briefed. The parties
have reached agreement in principle on a settlement of the matter
in the amount of $3,915,000, which is payable by the Company's
insurance carrier. The parties are currently engaged in
negotiating the settlement documents.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Still Ongoing in Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in In re Cablevision Consumer
Litigation, according to Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC
Holdings, LLC's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the
Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard
to the remaining claims which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which
asserts a claim only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer
was filed on May 2, 2012.  On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  The Company's brief in opposition
to the motion was filed on January 17, 2013.  On December 13,
2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The
Company's brief in opposition was filed on January 31, 2013.
Discovery is also proceeding. The Company believes that this claim
is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CANADIAN SOLAR: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar, Inc., one of the world's largest solar power
companies, on April 2 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a class action lawsuit filed against the Company and
certain named defendants.  The lawsuit alleged that the Company's
financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or
misleading and in violation of federal securities law.  The Court
found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a securities
law violation, and on March 29, 2013, it granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the judgment.


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces $182MM Suit for Ignoring Smart Meters
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit filed Thursday, April 4, 2013 in Cook
County, the plaintiffs say Commonwealth Edison, an Exelon Company
(ComEd NYSE: EXC), violated an Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC)
order issued under Illinois' Smart Grid Act.  In exchange for
annual formula rate increases, ComEd agreed to upgrade its grid,
improve system reliability and install smart meters at all
consumers' homes and businesses.  Though the ICC ordered ComEd to
begin smart meter installation by fall 2012, the company
unilaterally pushed back deployment until 2015.

To cover the Smart Grid upgrades, in 2011 ComEd filed for a
formula rate increase of $1.915 billion with the ICC. When the ICC
reduced that amount by $168 million, ComEd ignored the ICC smart
meter order and said it would delay installation of smart meters
by about two and a half years. Customers are currently paying for
the smart meters, even though none have been installed.

ComEd's original smart meter plan included the installation of
500,000 new smart meters on Chicago's South and West sides by
2013.  The smart meters would have provided ComEd customers with
$182 million in savings and other benefits if implemented on the
ICC order's original schedule.  Customer benefits include quicker
response times to outages and the ability to participate in energy
saving programs.

"ComEd has pulled off the biggest bait-and-switch in Illinois
history," said Chicago energy attorney Paul G. Neilan, who brought
the suit.  "ComEd sold this legislation on the benefits of smart
meters, and customers have already started paying for them.  But
then ComEd took the law into its own hands and willfully defied an
order of the Illinois Commerce Commission. No one will so much as
see a smart meter until 2015."

In addition, ComEd has been pushing Senate Bill 9 through the
General Assembly. The legislation contains provisions purporting
to release ComEd from its violation of the ICC's original order.

"Senate Bill 9 is a stealth statute because buried deep in the
bill is language that attempts to re-write history and erase
ComEd's violation of the ICC's order," says Neilan.  "That
provision is invalid on its face. It's also equivalent to a signed
confession. Customers also need to know that ComEd/Exelon gave
more than $192,000 in campaign contributions to the legislative
sponsors of Senate Bill 9. That's about one tenth of one percent
of the $182 million in damages ComEd inflicted on ratepayers."

Championed by former Mayor Daley, Chicago has worked hard to be
known as one of the most environmentally friendly and largest
users of green energy in the U.S. with its roof top gardens,
recycling programs, LEED certified buildings, and green
construction and development.  It has won numerous international
awards for its green agenda and even offers a city-sponsored
"Green Office Challenge."  "Smart meters are a crucial part of
that mission," Neilan said.  "ComEd's move will slow Chicago's
progress in energy efficiency and reduced emissions, and more
importantly in benefits to customers."


CONVERGYS CORP: May Appeal Denial of Motion to Strike Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In GRANT v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION, Hope Grant brings claims
against her employer, Convergys Corp., to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL), Mo.
Rev. Stat. Section 290.527.  She seeks to bring her claims as
collective and class actions, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees.

The Defendant moved to strike the Plaintiff's class and collective
allegations, relying on a waiver signed by the Plaintiff agreeing
to pursue any claim or lawsuit against the Defendant individually.

On March 1, 2013, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
strike.  The Court concluded that the waiver provision violated
the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.,
and was therefore unenforceable.

The Defendant argues that the Court, in distinguishing the Grant
case from cases involving waiver provisions contained in
arbitration agreements, placed arbitration agreements and other
contracts on unequal footing, in contravention of the Supreme
Court's decisions in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500
U.S. 20, 24 (1991) and AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct.
1740, 1745-46 (2011).  The Defendant further argues that the Court
should have adopted a broader interpretation of Owen v. Bristol
Care, 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013).  Similar arguments were
raised by the Defendant, and carefully considered by the Court,
prior to the Court's denial of the Defendant's motion to strike.
The Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, to certify issues for interlocutory appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

District Judge Carol E. Jackson disagrees with the Defendant's
broad interpretation of Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit
precedent, and finds no manifest errors of law requiring
reconsideration.  However, she added, the enforceability of the
waiver in the context of the NLRA involves a controlling question
of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and an immediate appeal from the March 1, 2013 order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.

Accordingly, the Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied
but its alternative request for certification for interlocutory
appeal is granted.  The Memorandum and Order entered on March 1,
2013 is amended to certify these question for immediate appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b):

   Is the provision in defendant's employment application
   containing plaintiff's waiver of the right to bring or
   participate in class or collective litigation or claims against
   defendant unenforceable as a violation of substantive rights
   protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
   Section 151 et seq.?

All proceedings in the case are stayed pending resolution of the
Defendant's application to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit for an interlocutory appeal.  The Defendant's
motion for an extension of time to file a reply is moot.

The case is HOPE GRANT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:12-CV-496 (CEJ), (E.D. Mo.).

A copy of the District Court's April 3, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/ADSXfxfrom Leagle.com.


DEBEERS DIAMOND: Consumers Set to Get Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
WSYR-TV reports that many of the checks have been mailed to
claimants in the DeBeers Diamond class action lawsuit settlement,
but that group still doesn't include the average consumer.  The
checks were mailed to authorized resellers, which include diamond
jewelry manufacturers and retailers.

According to DiamondsClassAction.com, regular consumers who filed
will receive checks within the next few months.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Continues to Defend "Martin" Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation continues to defend the class
action lawsuit captioned, Nicholas Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet,
Inc. and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., No. 12 CV 215
(USDC N.D. IL.), 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 January 11, 2012, Nicholas Martin filed
suit against Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer
Management Group, Inc. ("Convergys") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges
that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Section 227) because Convergys placed a
telephone call to Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and because Dun & Bradstreet,
Inc. authorized the telephone call. The TCPA generally prohibits
the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell phone for
nonemergency purposes and without the prior express consent of the
called party. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which may be trebled to $1,500 per violation at the
discretion of the court if the plaintiff proves the defendant
willfully violated the Act. Plaintiff sought to bring this action
as a class action on behalf of all persons who Defendants called
on their cell phone using an ATDS, where the Defendants obtained
the cell phone number from some source other than directly from
the called party, during the period January 11, 2010, to the
present. Both Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys answered the
complaint on March 2, 2012. Discovery has commenced and is
ongoing. On August 21, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion
for class certification, without prejudice, and granted the
Defendants leave to seek a ruling that decertifies the class. On
September 4, 2012, the Defendants each filed petitions seeking
leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

"On October 29, 2012, the parties agreed to mediate the case
through the Seventh Circuit Settlement Conference Program. Through
the ongoing mediation, the parties are currently negotiating the
terms of a potential settlement; however, any final proposed
settlement will be subject to approval by the Court. In accordance
with ASC 450, "Contingencies," as of December 31, 2012, a reserve
has been accrued by the company in this matter, which is reflected
in our consolidated financial statements. The amount of such
reserve is not material to the company's financial statements and
an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss cannot be
made."


DUN & BRADSTREET: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "O&R" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned, O&R
Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et
al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (USDC W.D. Wash.), 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 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R
Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against D&B and an unaffiliated entity. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws,
used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the
nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to
sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder
and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. On February
18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff must respond to that motion or file an amended complaint
by April 5, 2013. The parties are due to exchange initial
disclosures and complete the Rule 26(f) case management process in
March 2013.  Formal discovery has not started in the case. Due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. No amount in respect
of any potential judgment in this matter has been accrued in our
consolidated financial statements."


EXPRESS INC: Settled Illinois Wage-and-Hour Class Action in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Inc. settled a wage-and-hour class action in January,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing for the fiscal year
ended February 2, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2.

In a complaint filed on July 7, 2011, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois styled as
Eric Wynn, et al., v. Express LLC, the Company was named as a
defendant in a purported nationwide collective action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of applicable
Illinois state wage and hour statutes related to alleged off-the-
clock work.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees. In March 2012, the court granted conditional
collective action certification.

To avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation with
respect to this matter, in January 2013, the Company entered into
a settlement agreement to resolve all wage and hour claims that
were asserted or could have been asserted by the plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees and former employees who opted-
in to the collective action. The settlement agreement remains
subject to court approval. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the Company will pay approximately $0.4 million in the
aggregate to (i) plaintiffs and other employees and former
employees who opted-in to the collective action, and (ii) certain
legal fees and expenses on behalf of the plaintiffs and other
employees and former employees who opted-in to the collective
action.

According to the Company, as of February 2, 2012, its consolidated
balance sheets included a reserve for the settlement amount.  If
the settlement is not approved by the court, the amount of the
reserve may increase or decrease.

Express Inc. is a specialty apparel and accessory retailer
offering both women's and men's merchandise.  The Company opened
its first store in Chicago, Illinois in 1980 as a division of
L Brands, Inc. (formerly known as Limited Brands, Inc.). In 2007,
investment funds managed by Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc.,
acquired a controlling interest in the Express division from L
Brands.  As of February 2, 2013, the Company operated 625 stores
across the United States, in Canada, and in Puerto Rico.  The
stores are located primarily in high-traffic shopping malls,
lifestyle centers, and street locations, and average approximately
8,700 gross square feet.  The Company also sells products through
an e-commerce website, express.com, and has franchise agreements
with franchisees who operate Express stores in Latin America and
the Middle East.


FANNIE MAE: Still Facing Securities Litigation in D.C. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, remains a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, according to the agency's Form
10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2.

In the consolidated complaint filed in 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio allege that Fannie Mae and certain former officers,
as well as its former outside auditor, made materially false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs contend Fannie Mae's
accounting statements were inconsistent with requirements under
the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) relating to
hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts,
and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs.

On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers
of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of
publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from
April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for Fannie Mae,
intervened in this case. In 2011, the parties filed various
motions for summary judgment. On September 20, 2012, the court
granted summary judgment to defendant Franklin D. Raines, Fannie
Mae's former Chief Executive Officer, on all claims against him.
On October 16, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to
defendant J. Timothy Howard, Fannie Mae's former Chief Financial
Officer, on all claims against him. On November 20, 2012, the
court granted summary judgment to defendant Leanne Spencer, Fannie
Mae's former Controller, on all claims against her. The other
motions for summary judgment remain pending.

FHFA adopted a regulation in 2011, that provides in part that
while Fannie Mae is in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims
by Fannie Mae current or former shareholders, unless the Director
of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship.
FHFA's regulation has been challenged by lead plaintiffs in a
separate lawsuit also pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

In September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports
claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging
cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. Given the
substantial and novel legal questions that remain, including those
raised by FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's
determination, Fannie Mae said it is currently unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation.

Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered
by Congress in 1938, is the leading source of residential mortgage
credit in the secondary market.  The agency indirectly enables
families to buy, refinance or rent a home.  Fannie Mae also
purchases mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers
and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or
director of the company with respect to the company and its
assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities
to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated to management
the authority to conduct Fannie Mae's day-to-day operations.


FANNIE MAE: 2008 Securities Litigation Still in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, that discovery is ongoing in the case, In
re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation.

On February 11, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that the 2008 Securities Litigation be
coordinated for pretrial proceedings with another case, In re 2008
Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) allege that Fannie Mae, certain of its former
officers, and certain of its underwriters violated Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs
also allege that Fannie Mae, certain of its former officers, and
outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief.  On October 13,
2009, the Court entered an order allowing the Federal Housing
Finance Agency, as conservator for Fannie Mae, to intervene.

In 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims as to all defendants.  In 2010, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims.  As a result of the
partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims
remained pending against Fannie Mae and certain of its former
officers.  Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated
complaint on December 31, 2010.

In 2011, lead plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class of
persons who, between November 8, 2006 and September 5, 2008,
inclusive, purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and
options or (b) Fannie Mae preferred stock.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action
complaint on March 2, 2012 and added FHFA as a defendant. On
August 30, 2012, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, allowing plaintiffs' Securities
Exchange Act claims premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A
disclosures to proceed along with plaintiffs' claims premised on
Fannie Mae's risk management disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its
answer to the second amended complaint on October 29, 2012.

Given the stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified demand
or claim by the plaintiff, and the substantial and novel legal
questions that remain, Fannie Mae said it currently unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from this litigation.

Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered
by Congress in 1938, is the leading source of residential mortgage
credit in the secondary market.  The agency indirectly enables
families to buy, refinance or rent a home.  Fannie Mae also
purchases mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers
and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or
director of the company with respect to the company and its
assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities
to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated to management
the authority to conduct Fannie Mae's day-to-day operations.


FANNIE MAE: 2008 ERISA Litigation Still in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, that discovery is ongoing in the case, In
re Fannie Mae 2008 ERISA Litigation.

On February 11, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that the 2008 Securities Litigation be
coordinated for pretrial proceedings with another case, In re 2008
Fannie Mae Securities Litigation.

In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009, plaintiffs allege that
certain of Fannie Mae's current and former officers and directors,
including former members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee
and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors,
as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP participants and
beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock
when it was no longer prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of
the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock
beginning April 17, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and injunctive
and other equitable relief.

On February 1, 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint to add new factual allegations and the court granted
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March
2, 2012 adding two current Board members and then-CEO Michael J.
Williams as defendants. On October 22, 2012, the court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court
dismissed with prejudice claims against seven former and current
directors and officers who joined the Board of Directors or
Benefit Plans Committee after Fannie Mae was placed into
conservatorship. The court allowed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary
duty and failure to monitor claims to go forward, but dismissed
plaintiffs' conflict of interest claim.

"Given the stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified
demand or claim by the plaintiff, and the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation," Fannie Mae said.

Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered
by Congress in 1938, is the leading source of residential mortgage
credit in the secondary market.  The agency indirectly enables
families to buy, refinance or rent a home.  Fannie Mae also
purchases mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers
and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or
director of the company with respect to the company and its
assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities
to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated to management
the authority to conduct Fannie Mae's day-to-day operations.


FANNIE MAE: Discovery Ongoing in CIS v. Mudd, Et Al.
----------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, that discovery is ongoing in the case,
Comprehensive Investment Services v. Mudd, et al.

The individual securities action was originally filed on May 13,
2009, by plaintiff Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. against
certain of Fannie Mae's former officers and directors, and certain
of Fannie Mae's underwriters in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. On July 7, 2009, this case was
transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordination
with In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008
Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2011 against
Fannie Mae, certain of its former officers, and certain of its
underwriters.  The amended complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; violations of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and violations of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, common law fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae's May 2008
$2.0 billion offering of 8.25% non-cumulative preferred Series
T stock. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of rescission, actual
damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and
experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 2, 2012.

On August 30, 2012, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended complaint, allowing plaintiff's
Securities Exchange Act claims premised on Fannie Mae's subprime
and Alt-A disclosures and risk management disclosures to proceed.
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the state law
claims, as well as the federal claims based on alleged violations
of GAAP, and also dismissed two of Fannie Mae's former officers
from the action.

On October 10, 2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the court's order dismissing plaintiff's state
law claims against certain underwriters of Fannie Mae's Series
T preferred stock. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the amended
complaint on October 29, 2012.  Discovery is ongoing.

"Given the stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified
demand or claim by the plaintiff, and the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation," Fannie Mae said.

Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered
by Congress in 1938, is the leading source of residential mortgage
credit in the secondary market.  The agency indirectly enables
families to buy, refinance or rent a home.  Fannie Mae also
purchases mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers
and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or
director of the company with respect to the company and its
assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities
to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated to management
the authority to conduct Fannie Mae's day-to-day operations.


FANNIE MAE: Discovery Ongoing in Smith v. Fannie Mae, Et Al.
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, that discovery is ongoing in the case,
Smith v. Fannie Mae, et al.

This individual securities action was originally filed on February
25, 2010, by plaintiff Edward Smith against Fannie Mae and certain
of its former officers as well as several underwriters in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  On April
12, 2010, this case was transferred to the Southern District of
New York for coordination with In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities
Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2011, which
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; violations of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; common law
fraud and negligence claims; and California state law claims for
misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae's December 2007
$7.0 billion offering of 7.75% fixed-to-floating rate non-
cumulative preferred Series S stock. Plaintiff seeks relief in the
form of rescission, actual damages (including interest), and
exemplary and punitive damages. Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, allowing plaintiff's Securities Exchange Act claims
premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures and risk
management disclosures to proceed, but granted defendants' motions
to dismiss the state law claims.

On October 10, 2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the court's order dismissing plaintiff's state
law claims against certain underwriters of Fannie Mae's Series S
preferred stock. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the amended
complaint on October 29, 2012.

"Given the stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified
demand or claim by the plaintiff, and the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation," Fannie Mae said.

Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered
by Congress in 1938, is the leading source of residential mortgage
credit in the secondary market.  The agency indirectly enables
families to buy, refinance or rent a home.  Fannie Mae also
purchases mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers
and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or
director of the company with respect to the company and its
assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities
to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated to management
the authority to conduct Fannie Mae's day-to-day operations.


FANNIE MAE: Class Status Sought in Transfer Tax Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
A number of lawsuits have been filed against Federal National
Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, in multiple
states challenging the agency's right to claim an exemption under
our charter from transfer taxes in connection with the recordation
of deeds upon transfers of real property by sale or foreclosure.
In its Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 2, Fannie Mae said the plaintiffs in several of these
lawsuits seek to represent a nationwide class of localities.

In addition, Fannie has filed a lawsuit against the state of
Illinois and four counties seeking a judgment that the agency is
exempt from these transfer taxes.

"If any of these lawsuits are decided against us, we may be
required to pay past transfer taxes, damages, fees and/or costs,"
Fannie Mae said.  "Although we believe that our charter provides
us with an exemption from these taxes and therefore we have a
valid defense in these lawsuits, in March 2012 a federal district
court in Michigan held in two cases that we are not exempt from
Michigan transfer taxes under our charter. We, along with FHFA and
Freddie Mac, filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the two
Michigan decisions with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, which was granted on September 5, 2012. The appeal is
fully briefed. Since these two adverse rulings in Michigan, a
number of courts have agreed with our position that we are exempt
from these transfer taxes under our charter. We do not expect the
outcome of these lawsuits to have a material impact on our results
of operations or financial condition."

Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered
by Congress in 1938, is the leading source of residential mortgage
credit in the secondary market.  The agency indirectly enables
families to buy, refinance or rent a home.  Fannie Mae also
purchases mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers
and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or
director of the company with respect to the company and its
assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities
to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated to management
the authority to conduct Fannie Mae's day-to-day operations.


FIBRIA CELULOSE: Ratified Pact to Settle Securities Suit in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fibria Celulose S.A. ratified in December 2012 an agreement to
settle a securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In November 2008, a securities class action
was filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's ADRs between April 7 and October 2, 2008. The complaint
asserts alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act,
alleging that the Company failed to disclose information in
connection with, and losses arising from, certain derivative
transactions.

"During our Board of Directors meeting in December 2012, the
Company ratified, the agreement under judicial mediation, where
the Company and the other co-defendants agreed to pay the full
amount of US$ 37,5 million (equivalent to R$ 76,6) to all holders
of ADRs (American Depositary Receipt), from April 7 to October 2,
2008. The Company has active insurance policy D&O (Directors and
Officers), that will cover the full disbursement, with no material
effect for us."


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Suit Over Data Breach Dismissed in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action arising out of Global Payments Inc.'s processing
system intrusion was dismissed, with prejudice, on March 6, 2013,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2013.

The class action was filed against the Company on April 4, 2012,
by Natalie Willingham (individually and on behalf of a putative
nationwide class) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  Ms. Willingham alleged the Company
failed to maintain reasonable and adequate procedures to protect
her personally identifiable information -- PII -- which she claims
resulted in two fraudulent charges on her credit card in March
2012.  Further, Ms. Willingham asserted that the Company failed to
timely notify the public of the data breach.  Based on these
allegations, Ms. Willingham asserted claims for negligence,
violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act, willful
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, negligent violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, violation of Georgia's Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence per se, breach of third-
party beneficiary contract, and breach of implied contract.  The
Plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

On May 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
July 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her
complaint, and on July 16, 2012, the Court granted that motion.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 16, 2012. The amended
complaint did not add any new causes of action.  Instead, it added
two new named Plaintiffs (Nadine and Robert Hielscher) and dropped
Plaintiff's claim for negligence per se.

On August 16, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs' filed their
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 5,
2012, and the Company subsequently filed a reply brief on
October 22, 2012.  The magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs subsequently agreed to voluntarily
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, with each party bearing its
own fees and costs.  This was the only consideration exchanged by
the parties in connection with Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal
with prejudice of the lawsuit.

Global Payments Inc. is a high-volume processor of electronic
transactions for merchants, multinational corporations, financial
institutions, consumers, government agencies and other business
and non-profit business enterprises to facilitate payments to
purchase goods and services or further other economic goals.  The
Company's role is to serve as an intermediary in the exchange of
information and funds that must occur between parties so that a
transaction can be completed.


GOOGLE INC: Suits Over Automated Gmail Email Scanning Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a Madison County teen's lawsuit against Google will
be handled in California along with a handful of other suits that
accuse the internet giant of scanning Gmail users' emails for
advertising purposes.

The U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) recently granted
Google's request for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the Northern District of California.  The request
was heard during the panel's March session.

The consolidated litigation, according to the panel's transfer
order, consists of six actions pending in five districts,
including one from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

Out of the other five suits covered in the JPML order, two come
from the Northern District of California, and one each from the
Northern District of Florida, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and the District of Maryland.

All six suits, the order states, "involve allegations that
Google's automated scanning of emails sent to Gmail users for the
purposes of sending targeted advertisements to the sender amounts
to an illegal "interception" or "eavesdropping" under various
federal and/or state wiretapping statutes."

The Illinois suit -- A.K. v. Google -- was filed in November by
A.K., as next friend of 16-year-old J.K.  It seeks class action
status and alleges violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA) and Illinois' eavesdropping statute.

Google, according to A.K.'s complaint, "utilizes an electronic
device to intercept and scan the contents of subscribers' incoming
and outgoing emails immediately after the email communication is
sent and before it arrives at its intended recipient."

This, the suit alleges, "allows Google to place targeted ads on
its subscribers' Gmail screens and, thereby, generate revenue for
Google."

In January, attorneys for Google and the plaintiff filed a consent
motion regarding sequencing of initial motion practice, asking the
federal court to allow motion practice on the transfer request
before any other motions.

Google claimed that as a Gmail user, J.K. is bound by the
company's terms of service, which includes a clause on venue
requiring claims to be brought in Santa Clara, Calif.

The motion also noted that the plaintiff intends to object to any
such transfer on the grounds that as a minor, J.K "did not and
could not consent to a venue selection clause in Google's Terms of
Service."

U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy granted the consent motion.

According to the JPML, A.K., as well as the plaintiffs in the two
actions pending in California, did not oppose centralization1 and
supported the Northern District of California as transferee
district.

Plaintiffs in the pending Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania
suits, however, opposed centralization.

They, the order states, argued that "Google has admitted to
scanning emails," and "therefore, discovery will not be
sufficiently complex or time consuming to warrant centralization."

"Google argues, and we agree, that while Google admits to the act
of scanning, whether such activity constitutes a violation under
the statutes at issue will depend on many disputed factual issues
that will require complex discovery," the JPML wrote in its
transfer order.

It added "Google's position is supported by the amount and
complexity of the discovery produced thus far in the Northern
District of California" case of Dunbar v. Google.

Not only will centralization "serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation," but the panel explained that it "will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary."

The JPML also determined that the Northern District of California
is an appropriate forum for this litigation because Google is
headquartered there and two of the six suits at issue are pending
there.

The panel assigned the consolidated matter -- In Re: Google Inc.
Gmail Litigation MDL No. 2430 -- to Judge Lucy H. Koh, who it
described as "an experience transferee judge with the willingness
and ability to handle this litigation."

Thomas Rosenfeld, Mark Goldenberg and Kevin Green of Goldenberg,
Heller, Antognoli & Rowland in Edwardsville submitted the
complaint on behalf of A.K.

San Francisco attorneys Jeffrey Gutkin, Dylan Hale, Whitty
Somvichian and Kyle Wong, as well as Belleville attorneys Michael
Hermann and Charles Swartwout of Boyle Brasher, were listed as
Google's attorneys in the Illinois suit.


H&R BLOCK: Parker Waichman Files Class Action Over Tax Returns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP on April 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who allege that their tax
refunds were delayed due a tax return error by H&R Block.  The
suit was filed on March 29, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No.1:13-cv-
00698-CAB).  H&R Block, Inc, HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB
Technology LLC have been named as Defendants.

"These individuals trusted and paid H&R Block to file their tax
returns accurately so they could receive their refunds as soon as
possible," said Jordan L. Chaikin, a partner with Parker Waichman
LLP.  "However, H&R Block has made an error that has delayed
thousands of people from receiving their tax refunds on time.
Furthermore, consumers paid this company under the promise of a
100 percent guarantee for their services, yet they have not been
justly compensated for this error."

According to the Complaint, the Defendants erroneously and
negligently prepared Form 8863 included with 600,000 tax returns.
As a result, the suit alleges, tax refunds have been delayed up to
six weeks past when they would have been paid.  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that H&R Block has breached its
contract.  According to the allegations, H&R Block promised its
customers a "100% Satisfaction Money Back Guarantee" which states
that if the consumer is dissatisfied for any reason within 60
days, they are entitled to a refund for the full purchase price.
Despite this promise, the lawsuit alleges, H&R Block has failed to
offer compensation to the Plaintiffs or any putative class members
for the error caused solely by the company and its subsidiaries.

The lawsuit points out that H&R Block has admitted to making an
error on Form 8863 that has led to a delay in tax refunds.
According to the Complaint, Form 8863 is used to claim tax credits
for qualified expenses paid to postsecondary education
institutions.  According to the lawsuit's allegations and a report
in Kansas City Business Journal, H&R Block mistakenly left a
mandatory field blank instead of answering "yes" or "no" for
questions #22 through 26.  The lawsuit alleges that the error had
delayed tax returns of Plaintiffs and putative members beyond the
21 day turnaround represented by the Defendants.

Parker Waichman LLP has filed the class action lawsuit alongside
several other distinguished law firms, including: Climaco, Wilcox,
Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., LPA; Neblett, Beard & Arsenault;
Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze, LLC; Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman; and Geragos and Geragos APC.

Parker Waichman LLP -- http://www.yourlawyer.com-- is a mass
tort, environmental and personal injury law firm that represents
plaintiffs in class action and personal injury lawsuits
nationwide.  The firm has offices in New York, Long Island, New
Jersey, Washington, D.C. and Florida. For more than two decades,
Parker Waichman LLP has assisted thousands of clients in receiving
fair compensation due to the negligence of others.

Contact: Parker Waichman LLP
         Jordan Chaikin, Esq.
         Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
                    (800) 529-4636
         Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Has Claim Against BP in Deepwater Horizon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., has made presentment of a claim
to BP in the class action lawsuit arising from the Deepwater
Horizon tragedy -- the subsea blowout and resulting oil spill at
the Macondo well site in the GoM in April 2010 and subsequent
sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Doing so has
allowed the Company to preserve claims against BP under OPA 90
assuming the Company has claims that are compensable under the
court-approved settlement reached between BP and class action
plaintiffs.

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


IDAHO: Constitutionality of Student School Fees Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Education News reports that a case challenging the
constitutionality of student school fees was set to be discussed
in a Boise courtroom on April 1.  Two issues are on tap:

     -- The class action suit

Lawyers on both sides were set to debate whether the plaintiffs
can bring a class action lawsuit against the districts that charge
student fees.  As it stands now, 64 districts are defendants in
the case, which argues that the student fees violate the state's
constitutional mandate to provide free, common public schools.

Brian Julian, an attorney representing 56 of the districts, argues
that some districts charge fees just for athletics, or for
supplies -- or not at all.  "Every district treats fees
differently.  . . . There really isn't any common method of
analyzing this."

Plaintiff Russell Joki, a grandfather and former Nampa school
superintendent, says the move to separate filings is simply an
attempt to break the plaintiffs.

     -- The state's role

Plaintiffs in the case want the state, the Legislature, the State
Department of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tom Luna listed again as defendants. District Judge Richard
Greenwood removed the state from the case last month.

Last month, plaintiffs proposed to put the case on hold, if the
parties agreed to mediation.  No defendants agreed to the offer,
Mr. Joki said on March 29.


IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Court Okay of Tentative Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc., is waiting court approval of their
tentative agreement to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit
related to the Company's initial public offering, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2012.

The Company states: "In November 2006, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the District Court, against us,
certain then current and former directors and officers, as well as
the lead underwriters for our initial and secondary public
offerings. The lawsuits were consolidated and
an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007. The amended
complaint sought unspecified damages for certain alleged
misrepresentations and omissions made by us in connection with
both our initial public offering in September 2005 and our follow-
on offering in March 2006. On June 25, 2007, we filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 10,
2008, the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On
March 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and
on June 12, 2008, the District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration. On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of
its motion for reconsideration to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, or the Court of Appeals. On
September 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the amended complaint, but vacated its
judgment on the motion for reconsideration and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings. On June 11, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in the
District Court, and on November 23, 2010, the District Court
denied the motion. On January 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the Court of Appeals. On May 25, 2012, the Court of
Appeals granted plaintiffs' appeal, finding that their proposed
amended complaint succeeded in stating a claim. The case was
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, and on
June 19, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action
Complaint.

"The parties held a mediation on December 6, 2012 and agreed to a
tentative agreement to settle the case, subject to confirmatory
discovery and the Court's approval. However, we cannot predict the
final outcome of the litigation based on a tentative agreement,
and an adverse result could have a material effect on our
financial statements."


IMMUCOR INC: June 6 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP disseminates notice of
proposed settlement of class action:

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                         ATLANTA DIVISION
            IN RE IMMUCOR, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
                Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-2351-TWT

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF IMMUCOR, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER
19, 2005, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 25, 2009, EXCLUDING
DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AFFILIATES:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (i) of the pendency of
the action encaptioned In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 09 cv 2351 (TWT) (N.D.Ga) as a class action on behalf of the
persons or entities described above; and (ii) that a settlement
reached in this Action has been proposed that will fully and
finally settle all claims against and release all Defendants.  The
Settlement amount is $3,900,000.00.  A hearing will be held before
the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Richard B. Russell
Federal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta, GA
30303-3361 at 10:00 a.m. on June 6, 2013 in Courtroom 2108, to
determine: (1) whether this Action should be finally certified,
for settlement purposes only, as a class action under Rules 23(a)
and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the
Class; (2) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Plan
of Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore
should be approved in connection with the Settlement; and (4)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the (1) Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses; and (2) Proof Of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of
these documents by calling the toll-free telephone number (877)
810-7247. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form may also be
downloaded from http://www.kaplanfox.comor
http://www.immucorsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be potentially eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
submit a Claim Form no later than July 24, 2013, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment(s) entered in the Action whether or not you make a Claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion to be received by May 16, 2013, in the
manner and form explained in the Notice.  All Class Members who do
not request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation or
application for attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses
must be filed with the Court and delivered to be received by
counsel for the parties no later than May 16, 2013, in the manner
and form set forth in the Notice.

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

Inquiries may be made to Lead Counsel:

Frederic S. Fox KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th
Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: 800-290-1952

Dated: March 6, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appraisers File Overtime Policy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
City News Service reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit was
filed in federal court in Santa Ana on April 1 alleging that
JPMorgan Chase was getting around overtime laws by improperly
classifying some employees involved in appraising property.

The lawsuit seeks to represent about 150 appraisers seeking
millions of dollars in overtime pay, said attorney Bryan Schwartz,
who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Long Beach resident Kenneth Lee
and Mark Thompson, an appraiser who worked in the company's Irvine
branch.

Mr. Schwartz said it is "disingenuous" to classify the appraisers
as administrators, therefore exempting them from overtime pay,
because they do not have the authority to make administrative
decisions about the value of the properties they evaluate,
Schwartz said.

The appraisers have formulas they have been issued to determine
the value of property and do not have the authority to deviate
from it, Mr. Schwartz said.

JPMorgan officials could not be immediately reached for comment
after business hours.

To qualify for bonuses they have various goals related to billing,
and the only way to achieve those benchmarks is to work overtime
on weekends and holidays, Mr. Schwartz alleged.

"Chase has its production appraisers working upwards of 70 hours a
week, through weekends and holidays, to meet Chase's billing
requirements," said Lee, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit with
Thompson."  Chase is running an appraisal sweatshop, and it's time
that Chase be required to compensate its appraisers fairly."

Some of the appraisers are "review appraisers," meaning they look
over the work of others in their department and are "glorified
proofreaders who worked long hours helping Chase with its loan
sales," Mr. Schwartz said.

The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Employment-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc., continues to defend employment-related
class action lawsuits, 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's operations are subject to a variety of federal and
state employment-related laws and regulations, including but not
limited to the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, regulations of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Civil
Rights and state attorneys general, federal and state wage and
hour laws and a variety of laws enacted by the federal and state
governments that govern these and other employment-related
matters.

Accordingly, the Company is currently subject to employee-related
claims, class action and other lawsuits and proceedings in
connection with the Company's operations, including but not
limited to those related to alleged wrongful discharge, illegal
discrimination and violations of equal employment and federal and
state wage and hour laws. Because labor represents such a large
portion of the Company's operating costs, non-compliance with
these evolving federal and state laws and regulations could
subject the Company to significant back pay awards, fines and
additional lawsuits and proceedings. These claims, lawsuits and
proceedings are in various stages of adjudication or investigation
and involve a wide variety of claims and potential outcomes. Based
upon currently available information, the Company has recorded a
$5 million loss provision related to these claims, lawsuits and
proceedings during 2012, but the actual losses may be more than
the provision for loss.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Attorney Objects to Accord in Non-Halal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Slezak, writing for Press and Guide, reports that the attorney
who threw a monkey wrench into the settlement over non-halal
chicken being served at a McDonald's in east Dearborn has filed an
objection to the settlement.

Majed Moughni, who lives and practices law in Dearborn, filed it
on March 29.

An April 1 deadline was set for hand-delivered objections; the
deadline for mailed objections has passed.  A final settlement
conference is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on April 17 before Wayne
County Circuit Judge Kathleen Macdonald.

Finley's Management Co., which owns the McDonald's at 13158 Ford
Road, and McDonald's Corp. agreed to pay $700,000 to settle a
class action lawsuit brought by Dearborn Heights resident Ahmed
Ahmed on Nov. 23, 2011.

According to the suit, the restaurant served non-halal chicken
when it ran out of halal chicken, and it didn't tell customers of
the switch.  "Halal" refers to meeting Islamic requirements to
preparing food.  God's name must be invoked before an animal
providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.

Macdonald ruled Jan. 18 that Ahmed was to get about $20,000; his
attorneys from the Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group in Dearborn were to
get about $230,000; the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn
was to get about $150,000; and the Health Unit on Davison Avenue
Inc. in Detroit, also known as HUDA, was to get about $274,000.

Mr. Moughni wrote in his objection that the proposed settlement is
"unfair, unreasonable and inadequate," and that HUDA and the
museum are nonclass members that shouldn't get settlement money
because they are not charities that target class members.  He
wrote that HUDA, near the Davison and Lodge freeways in Detroit,
does not serve Dearborn, where the restaurant is and where many of
the class members live.  He wrote that the museum, 13624 Michigan
Ave., has nothing to do with "halal."  He proposed giving the
money to a charity that meets the "next best" standard, like the
Dearborn Public Schools, which serves almost all of Dearborn and
the part of Dearborn Heights where Ahmed lives.

Another objection was filed March 20 by attorney Iris Rubin on
behalf of Aqil Al-Eisa, Azhar Alghazawi and their two minor
children because the settlement doesn't give money to class
members.

According to the original settlement, HUDA was selected because it
has a diverse patient base, including from Muslim communities.  It
operates three days a week and provides free medical, optical and
dental services, the settlement said.  The museum was chosen
because it can use the money for free tours for student groups,
free admission on designated days, free writing workshops and
financial rewards, and recognition for creative writing or
research projects.

The original settlement was disrupted by Mr. Moughni, who posted
his displeasure on Dearborn Area Community Members, a Facebook
page he's administered since November 2009.  He asked page members
who ate the haram, or forbidden, chicken to leave contact
information for themselves and others who ate the meat, even
though he wasn't involved in the case to that point.

Ahmed's lead attorney, Kassem Dakhlallah, filed a motion for
injunctive relief against Mr. Moughni on Jan. 31, which Macdonald
granted Feb. 7.  She ordered Mr. Moughni to remove previous
information about the case from the page; put her original class
action settlement order and her order against him on the page; and
give her a list of those who responded and "liked" the entry,
including their contact information and what they wrote.
Mr. Moughni complied.

He also was barred from communicating about the case without prior
written permission from Macdonald and Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group,
and she threatened in the order to refer Mr. Moughni to the state
Attorney Grievance Commission.

Mr. Moughni filed a motion Feb. 15 for Macdonald to overturn her
order; she denied the motion Feb. 22.  The American Civil
Liberties Union and the Public Citizens Litigation Group of
Washington, D.C., threw their support behind Mr. Moughni, saying
his free-speech rights were violated.

McDonald's filed a motion to ungag Mr. Moughni, and Macdonald
ruled March 11 that denying the motion was a moot point because
she granted the company's request to extend the settlement
response period to April 8 because of the confusion created by the
controversy. Feb. 18 was the initial response deadline; the
initial final settlement hearing was to be on March 1.

A campaign to boycott the Ford Road McDonald's was announced
recently on Dearborn Area Community Members, and Mr. Moughni said
it has had more views than any other subject in the page's
history.

The original proposed settlement notice is at
http://www.jaafarandmahdi.comand the firm also has the notice in
Arabic and Bengali.  Those with questions can call the firm's
office at 1-313-846-6400.

Those who object to the proposed settlement, wish to intervene or
want to opt out of the settlement class had until April 1 to hand-
deliver a written request to Macdonald's courtroom on the 11th
floor of the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, 2 Woodward Ave. at
Jefferson Avenue, Detroit.  Those who made a submission by Feb. 18
don't have to respond again.

The suit covers anyone who ate the non-halal chicken at two
McDonald's in the city's east end -- 13158 Ford Road and 14860
Michigan Ave. -- since Sept. 1, 2005.  They are believed to be the
only McDonald's in the country to serve halal chicken.


MEDIFAST INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medifast, Inc., a United States manufacturer and provider of
portion-controlled weight-loss products and programs, on April 1
announced the favorable resolution of a securities class action
lawsuit initiated in March, 2011.

Maryland U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III said he agreed
with Medifast's argument that the financial restatements in
March, 2010 due to discovered errors in its tax calculations were
the result of rapid growth and a transition to a new auditing
team.

"We are very pleased with the federal judge's ruling and support
of Medifast," commented Michael C. MacDonald, Medifast's Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer.  "We believe we have the right team
in place and have implemented much improved financial reporting
processes and procedures to continue to support the future growth
of our multi-channel business model with Take Shape for Life,
Medifast Direct, and the Medifast Weight Control Center and
Wholesale Physicians sales channels."


MHN GOVERNMENT: Bid to Compel Arbitration in MFLCs' Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston denied a motion to compel arbitration
in THOMAS ZABOROWSKI, et al., on behalf of themselves and a
putative class, Plaintiffs, v. MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. and
MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Defendants, No. C 12-05109 SI, (N.D.
Cal.).

The Defendants hired the Plaintiffs to provide counseling to
military service members and their families. The Plaintiffs, as
Military Family Life Consultants (MFLCs or MFL Consultants),
provide financial counseling, child services, and victim advocacy
counseling at U.S. military installations across the country and
internationally. The Plaintiffs have professional licenses and are
rotated on short-term assignments to different locations. The
Plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that MHN Government Services,
Inc. and Managed Health Network, Inc. misclassified them as
independent contractors, and that they should be classified as
employees and entitled to overtime compensation. They assert
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), and similar state labor laws.

The standard counseling services contract between MHN and an MFL
Consultant contains an express mandatory arbitration clause.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration clause is both procedurally
and substantively unconscionable, and therefore they should not be
compelled to arbitrate their claims.

An arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable if it is
"overly harsh" or generates "'one-sided' results," notes the
Court.

In the Zaborowski case, says Judge Illston, the arbitration clause
was procedurally unconscionable because the agreement was a
contract of adhesion, was oppressive, and created an unfair
surprise.

A copy of the District Court's April 3, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/hcMgf3from Leagle.com.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Claims in "Kramer" Suit Dismissed in October
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Hilary Kramer was dismissed
in October 2012, according to MoneyGram International, Inc.'s
March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In March 2008, the Company completed a recapitalization pursuant
to which the Company received an infusion of $1.5 billion of gross
equity and debt capital (the 2008 Recapitalization).  The equity
component consisted of the sale to affiliates of Thomas H. Lee
Partners, L.P., or THL, and affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co., or
Goldman Sachs, and collectively with THL, the Investors, in a
private placement of Series B Participating Convertible Preferred
Stock of the Company, or the B Stock, and Series B-1 Participating
Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company, or the B-1 Stock, and
collectively with the B Stock, the Series B Stock, for an
aggregate purchase price of $760.0 million.  The Company also paid
Goldman Sachs an investment banking advisory fee equal to $7.5
million in the form of shares of the B-1 Stock.

On May 12, 2011, a complaint was filed in the County Court at Law
No. 3 in Dallas County, Texas, by Hilary Kramer purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all stockholders and a
stockholder derivative complaint against the Company, THL, Goldman
Sachs and each of the Company's directors.  Ms. Kramer alleged in
her complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and
asserted, among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs and (ii)
claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against
Goldman Sachs.  Ms. Kramer purported to sue on her own behalf and
on behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Ms. Kramer sought
to, among other things, enjoin the 2011 Recapitalization.  The
defendants moved for the Texas court to stay this litigation in
favor of the Pittman litigation in Delaware, which has an
overlapping class definition.

On October 22, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Kramer litigation filed
a notice of non-suit, voluntarily dismissing the claims in Texas
court.

Dallas, Texas-based MoneyGram International, Inc. --
http://www.moneygram.com/-- is a global money transfer and
payment services company.  The Company's products include global
money transfers, bill payment solutions and financial paper
products.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: To Distribute "Pittman" Settlement Funds by 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining $6.6 million settlement fund will be distributed to
class members in the lawsuit commenced by Willie R. Pittman during
the first and second quarters of 2013, according to MoneyGram
International, Inc.'s March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In March 2008, the Company completed a recapitalization pursuant
to which the Company received an infusion of $1.5 billion of gross
equity and debt capital (the 2008 Recapitalization).  The equity
component consisted of the sale to affiliates of Thomas H. Lee
Partners, L.P., or THL, and affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co., or
Goldman Sachs, and collectively with THL, the Investors, in a
private placement of Series B Participating Convertible Preferred
Stock of the Company, or the B Stock, and Series B-1 Participating
Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company, or the B-1 Stock, and
collectively with the B Stock, the Series B Stock, for an
aggregate purchase price of $760.0 million.  The Company also paid
Goldman Sachs an investment banking advisory fee equal to $7.5
million in the form of shares of the B-1 Stock.

On April 15, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by Willie R. Pittman purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all stockholders and a
stockholder derivative complaint against the Company, THL,
affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co., or Goldman Sachs, and each of
the Company's directors.  Ms. Pittman alleged in her complaint
that she is a stockholder of the Company and asserted, among other
things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure claims against
the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs, (ii) breach of the
Company's certificate of incorporation claims against the Company,
THL and Goldman Sachs, and (iii) claims for aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties against Goldman Sachs.  Ms. Pittman
purported to sue on her own behalf and on behalf of the Company
and its stockholders.  Ms. Pittman sought to, among other things,
enjoin or rescind the 2011 Recapitalization.  On April 29, 2011,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add two additional
plaintiffs, Susan Seales and Stephen Selzer.  On May 16, 2011, a
hearing to enjoin or rescind the 2011 Recapitalization was held in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, referred to as the
Delaware Court, and at the hearing, the plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction was denied.  The 2011 Recapitalization was
completed on May 18, 2011.  The plaintiffs sought to recover
damages of some or all of the cash and stock payments made to THL
and Goldman Sachs by the Company in connection with the 2011
Recapitalization.

On October 10, 2012, the Delaware Court approved the terms of a
settlement of the Pittman litigation and dismissed the action with
prejudice on the merits, pending final determination of a fee
award to class counsel.  The terms of the settlement are set forth
in a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, dated
as of July 19, 2012.  The Stipulation provided for a settlement
payment of $10.0 million, to be distributed pro rata to certain
stockholders, net of attorneys' fees to be awarded by the Delaware
Court.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, the
Company recognized $6.5 million of expense for the proposed
settlement.  The Company, THL, Goldman Sachs, the Company's
directors and other parties agreed to share financial
responsibility for funding the settlement payment as follows: (i)
the Company contributed $3.5 million; (ii) the Company's insurer
contributed $2.8 million under the Company's director and officer
liability policy; (iii) THL and the individuals nominated by THL
as directors of the Company, referred to collectively as the THL
Directors, waived all future rights to receive cash or equity
compensation from the Company for services by the THL Directors or
any other directors nominated by THL, and the Company contributed
$2.0 million toward the settlement payment in recognition of such
waiver; (iv) Goldman Sachs agreed to waive reimbursements of $1.0
million of legal fees and expenses associated with the Company's
2011 Recapitalization, and the Company contributed this amount
toward the settlement payment; and (v) other parties with rights
related to the 2011 Recapitalization agreed to waive reimbursement
of $0.8 million of legal fees and expenses, and the Company
contributed this amount toward the settlement payment.

During the third quarter of 2012, the Company recognized $3.0
million of additional paid in capital for the amounts that THL and
Goldman Sachs contributed for the settlement.  The Stipulation
also included a release by the putative class of stockholders of
all claims with respect to the allegations in the action or
relating to the 2011 Recapitalization.

On January 7, 2013, the Delaware Court awarded class counsel $3.4
million in fees, to be paid from the settlement fund.  The
remaining $6.6 million will be distributed to class member
stockholders pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, during the
first and second quarters of 2013.

Dallas, Texas-based MoneyGram International, Inc. --
http://www.moneygram.com/-- is a global money transfer and
payment services company.  The Company's products include global
money transfers, bill payment solutions and financial paper
products.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission April 2, MRV
Communications Inc. disclosed that as of January 4, 2013,
litigation in the federal and state derivative actions has been
stayed pending court approval of a proposed settlement between the
derivative plaintiffs, individual defendants and the Company. On
March 1, 2013 the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement with
the federal court, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the Stipulation.

MRV said there can be no assurance that either the federal or
state court will approve the Stipulation. The Stipulation
includes, among other things, (a) a release of all claims relating
to the derivative litigation for the Company, the individual
defendants and the plaintiffs; (b) a provision that $2.5 million
in cash be paid to the Company by the Company's insurance
carriers; (c) payment of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel
including $500,000 in cash and 250,000 warrants to purchase the
Company's Common Stock, with a five-year term and strike price of
the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on the date an
order of the federal District Court approving the settlement
becomes final; (d) the continued payment by the Company of
applicable reasonable attorneys' fees for the individual
defendants.

Within 120 days following the later of the issuance of an order
approving the Settlement by the federal District Court, or the end
of the period available for appeal, the Company would be required
to take certain corporate governance reform actions, many of which
have already been implemented.

From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of the Company's former
officers and directors.  The five lawsuits filed in the Central
District of California were consolidated. Claims were asserted
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  In November 2010, the judge overseeing
the securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a
stipulated $10.0 million settlement agreement, which was covered
by the Company's director and officer insurance policies.

In June 2008, the Company announced that its Board of Directors,
based on information provided by management, and in consultation
with management, concluded that the financial statements and the
related reports of the Company's independent public accountants
should not be relied upon due to the Company's intention to
restate its financial results from 2002 through 2008 to correct
its accounting for option grants and other issues.  The Board
appointed a Special Committee of independent directors, along with
independent legal counsel and outside accounting experts, to
investigate the issues, and a restatement of the Company's
financial statements was filed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 in October 2009.

The Company said in the regulatory filing that majority of the
costs to date related to the Company's and defendants' defense of
the various actions have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers under its director and officer insurance policies,
including the securities class action settlement.  However, the
Company also has accrued for requests for payment for services of
defense counsel and other parties through December 31, 2012.  The
Company has agreed to pay reasonable attorney fees and expenses
for the individual defendants in the Stipulation, and will
continue to incur its own legal expenses until this matter is
finally resolved and non-appealable.  Any such future obligations
are not determinable at this time, the Company said in the filing.

Chatsworth, California-based MRV Communications Inc. is a global
provider of optical communications network infrastructure
equipment and services to a broad range of telecom concerns,
including multinational telecommunications operators, local
municipalities, cable multiple system operators, corporate and
consumer high speed Internet service providers, content delivery
network operators, and data storage and cloud computing providers.
As a single source of multi-layer products that enable network
convergence focusing on Internet Protocol, Ethernet and optical
technologies and infrastructure management equipment and services,
MRV provides customers with integrated network management, cost
effective equipment, and network integration services expertise.
MRV also helps customers effectively manage all aspects of their
evolving network architecture.

MRV operates in two reporting segments.  Its Network Equipment
segment includes two business units: Optical Communications
Systems division, and Appointech, Inc.  Its Network Integration
segment includes one business unit: Tecnonet S.p.A.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: June Hearing for Student Athletes' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that four years ago, former UCLA
standout Ed O'Bannon filed a lawsuit that has blossomed into one
of the biggest legal threats the NCAA has ever faced over the
issue of paying student athletes who attract billions of dollars
in revenue annually.  And as the men's basketball tournament
reaches the Final Four, the most recent court filing from the NCAA
highlights how much is at stake.

Weeks ago, the organization submitted more than 2,000 pages of
legal arguments urging a judge to block the players' attempts to
turn the lawsuit into a class action, which could put the NCAA's
financial exposure into the billions.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has scheduled a hearing in June
to consider the class action request, which university
administrators have lined up to oppose.


NEW LEAF: To Defend Against Suit Over Lead Content in Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Leaf Brands, Inc., on January 29, 2009, was notified that it
was named as defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class
action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly
failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.
Although the product in question was sold as part of New Leaf's
asset sale to Nutra, Inc., New Leaf remains as a named defendant
in the case.

In a Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, New Leaf
Brands said, "We believe this case is without merit and we plan to
defend it vigorously. We believe this suit will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows
or financial condition."

Old Tappan, New Jersey-based New Leaf Brands, Inc. develops
markets and distributes healthy and functional ready-to-drink
beverages.  The Company distributes its products through
independent distributors both internationally and domestically.


NEW YORK, NY: Senator Adams Testifies in Stop-and-Frisk Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Horan, writing for WNYC News, reports that State Senator
Eric Adams said he witnessed a rare moment of candor by Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly in a 2010 meeting that shed light on the
NYPD's stop and frisk tactic.

Testifying in a class-action suit challenging the policy as
unconstitutional, Mr. Adams, a retired police captain, said Mr.
Kelly suggested to him that he condoned illegal stops during a
closed-door meeting two years ago.

"He indicated that, you know, the reason they focus or target on
Black and Hispanic youth is because he wants to instill fear that
every time they leave home they could be stopped and searched,"
Mr. Adams said outside the courthouse.  "I was shocked, I told him
that I believe it was illegal and that that was not what stop and
frisk was supposed to be used for.

Mr. Adams said he, then-Governor David Paterson, Rep. Hakeem
Jeffries and state Senator Martin Golden met with Mr. Kelly to
discuss legislation, now passed, that prohibits the NYPD from
storing information on those stopped and frisked and found
innocent of any wrongdoing.

Mr. Golden, a Republican from Brooklyn, told WNYC on April 1 he
doesn't recall Mr. Kelly making comments about instilling fear in
individuals.  He said they discussed high incidents of stops in
communities of color.

"The commissioner noted those communities often also have high
rates of crime," Mr. Golden said.

Mr. Kelly categorically denied ever making the remarks Mr. Adams
referred to.  "It's interesting that apparently only Adams heard
this statement, although others were present," remarked Mr. Kelly
at an unrelated news conference.  He noted that Adams has a
history of criticizing the department.

Mr. Kelly has touted stop and frisk as an important crime-fighting
tool vital to the city's historic crime lows.  Mr. Adams said the
tactic is helpful when used correctly.


NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS: Status Hearing for Fund Suit on April 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that
Gov. Eloy S. Inos on April 2 took the witness stand in federal
court where he vouched on the administration's intent to continue
pursuing settlement negotiations in good faith in connection with
retiree Betty Johnson's class action against the CNMI government.

Mr. Inos' testimony basically resolved Johnson's emergency motion
that was the subject of the hearing, and this prompted U.S.
District Court for the NMI designated Judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood to express appreciation to the governor for participating
in the proceedings.

In a written order after the hearing, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood
ordered the CNMI government to continue making payments to the
Fund consistent with the line-item appropriation of $10 million in
its Fiscal Year 2013 budget.

The judge ordered the Fund not to distribute employee
contributions to applicants under Public Laws 17-82 and 18-2 while
settlement negotiations with bankruptcy chief judge Robert Faris
are ongoing.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood directed the NMI Retirement Fund to
continue processing applications under these two laws.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood, however, stressed that her order does not
affect Johnson's right to later challenge the validity of Public
Laws 17-82 and 18-2.

The judge set a status hearing for April 19, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

Johnson filed an emergency motion for clarification of Judge
Tydingco-Gatewood's order dated Jan. 18, 2013 with respect to
Public Law 18-2.

Ms. Johnson argued that the emergency hearing is necessary because
the passage of Public Law 18-2 will affect the viability of the
ongoing settlement process.

Mr. Inos testified that the administration is participating in
good faith in the settlement discussions before Judge Faris.  He
also agreed to hold "in abeyance" the implementation of Public
Laws 17-82 and 18-2 until the settlement negotiations are
completed.

The governor's testimony appeared to surprise Ms. Johnson's lead
counsel, Margery Bronster, and Judge Tydingco-Gatewood, as this
led to resolving the motion for clarification.

Public Law 17-82 allows the Fund members to withdraw the full
amount of their contributions without separating from the
government.

Public Law 18-2 that Mr. Inos signed last month compels the Fund
to release up to 50 percent of members' contributions within 30
days of submitting a refund application.

"We should proceed with the settlement process," Mr. Inos stated
in court. "I will personally participate in the discussions."

On the issue of implementation of Public Laws 17-82 and 18-2, the
governor said they don't have control of Fund disbursements.

"We don't have the checks," he said.

In an interview with reporters after the hearing, Mr. Inos said he
agrees to "hold in abeyance" the implementation of the two subject
public laws because they want to proceed with the settlement
negotiations in good faith.

"If we don't do this, the process is going to be protracted.
Settlement discussions would expedite matters," he said.

On the issue of lack of actuarial study conducted in passing the
two subject public laws, Mr. Inos said Public Law 18-2 was enacted
because of the Fund's concern on Public Law 17-82, and that
throughout the deliberations there was no request presented to
perform actuarial study.

"I don't think this is relevant anymore unless the number of
people in the Defined Benefit system were active employees will
amount to a significant number," Mr. Inos said.

With the Executive Branch, the governor said, there are only about
a hundred people who have not requested for termination of their
membership.

"That's a very small number. And if any actuarial report were to
be done, we're using those folks in the calculation.  Because
those are the folks that have not retired and some estimation will
have to be made to determine the impact on the Fund even when they
retired," he said.

Mr. Inos said the whole premise of Public Laws 17-82 and 18-2 is
to focus on annual payment.

Mr. Inos said after they remove the liability pertaining to
employees if they have terminated membership, then the only folks
that will be left in the system will be the retirees.

Mr. Inos said for the retirees they know the total amount that are
needed to pay them in annual basis.

"Based on that amount we can then formulate a plan, a funding
mechanism that should be sufficient and adequate to provide for
these payments on annual basis," he said.

"That's what I mean by the whole landscape has changed from an
actuary based pension system to just to an annuity," he said.

Ms. Bronster said she was really grateful that Mr. Inos showed up
and answered questions.

"I think but the most exciting thing about it is that he was
willing to work with us and commit to negotiating in good faith
and that was really important," Mr. Bronster said.

The lawyer said their concern was that if the government was going
to be passing laws and taking actions that were going to undermine
the settlement process, then they have a problem with it.

"And I was very pleased that the governor agreed to give the
settlement process a shot and we'll see," she said.

Assistant attorney general Reena Patel, counsel for the CNMI
government, disclosed that the settlement process has been moving
along.

"The government is taking the settlement process seriously," Patel
said.

Ms. Patel also mentioned, among other things, that the $10 million
line-item appropriation is a guarantee that the government is
doing its best to resolve the Fund problems.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Conference in Securities Suit Set for Aug. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
A pretrial conference is currently set for August 22, 2013, in the
consolidated securities lawsuit against Novatel Wireless, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.  The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements during
the relevant time period regarding the strength of its products
and market share, its financial results and its internal controls.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
costs.  The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss.  sIn
May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers
of Company common stock between February 27, 2007, and September
15, 2008.  On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of
plaintiffs' claims.

A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011.  On March 15, 2011,
the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable
Anthony J. Battaglia.  Following the reassignment, the court
vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of
dispositive motions.  Oral argument on the motion for summary
judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011.  On
November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion for summary judgment.  On July 9, 2012,
the court vacated the pretrial conference date.  On December 14,
2012, the court issued an order denying defendants' motion to
exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' loss causation expert.  The
court had set a pretrial conference for March 8, 2013, and a trial
date of June 3, 2013.

On February 7, 2013, the court reconsidered its December 14, 2012
order and granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert
on loss causation.  The court, however, gave plaintiffs the
opportunity to provide a new report from the expert seeking to
cure the deficiencies in the expert's testimony.  The court
provided a schedule for the cure process and ordered plaintiffs to
bear the burden of defendants' expenses incurred in this process.
The court also reset the pretrial conference for
August 22, 2013, and a trial date of November 18, 2013.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome
of this litigation.  The Company has not recorded any significant
accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter
based on the Company's belief that a liability, while possible, is
not probable.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be
estimated at this time.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.novatelwireless.com/-- is a
provider of intelligent wireless solutions for the worldwide
mobile communications market.  The Company's broad range of
products principally includes intelligent mobile hotspots, USB
modems, embedded modules for machine-to-machine and mobile
computing original equipment manufacturers, integrated asset-
management M2M devices, and communications and applications
software.  The Company was incorporated in 1996 in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


OREGON: DoJ Files Motion to Intervenes in Disabilities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Heasley, writing for Disability Scoop, reports that the
Obama administration is looking to become directly involved in a
class-action lawsuit that has people with developmental
disabilities seeking greater employment opportunities.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to intervene in a
federal lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of people with
developmental disabilities against the state of Oregon.  The
individuals behind the case allege that the state is violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing supported
employment services, which help people with disabilities work in
the community.

The first-of-its-kind suit is being closely watched by advocates
as the disability community remains split on the appropriate role
of sheltered workshops and subminimum wage.

Plaintiffs in the case argue that they have requested assistance
to be able to obtain competitive employment for years with no luck
and are trapped in a system where sheltered employment --
typically paying less than minimum wage -- is their only option.

Now, in a move that could add weight to the proceedings, the
Justice Department wants to become a plaintiff as well.  In a
filing with the court, government attorneys allege that "the state
of Oregon discriminates against individuals with intellectual or
developmental disabilities by unnecessarily segregating them in
sheltered workshops and by placing them at risk of such
segregation."

The action comes nearly a year after the Justice Department filed
a statement of interest with the court arguing that limiting
people with disabilities to employment in sheltered workshops is
no different than restricting them to live in institutions.

Attorneys for the federal government say they tried unsuccessfully
to work with the state of Oregon to resolve the complaint.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Continues to Defend TCPA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend itself
against the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation,
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.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., has been named as defendant
in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling
consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express
consent.  On December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these
matters into one consolidated proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  On
November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in the matter of
Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01008,
which imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Company
from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls to
cellular telephones with California area codes that were obtained
through skip-tracing.  On December 28, 2012, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's
petition seeking a rehearing en banc.  Meyer is one of the cases
included in the MDL action. Both Meyer and the MDL action are
ongoing and no final determination on the merits in either has
been made.


ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
In a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2013,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, Ross
Stores Inc. disclosed that, like many California retailers, it has
been named in class action lawsuits alleging violation of wage and
hour and other employment laws.  Class action litigation remains
pending as of February 2, 2013.

"We believe that the resolution of our pending class action
litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results
of operations, or cash flows," the Company added.

Pleasanton, California-based Ross Stores, Inc. and its
subsidiaries operate two brands of off-price retail apparel and
home fashion stores -- Ross Dress for Less(R) and dd's
DISCOUNTS(R).  Ross is the largest off-price apparel and home
fashion chain in the United States, with 1,091 locations in 33
states, the District of Columbia and Guam, as of February 2, 2013.
Ross also operates 108 dd's DISCOUNTS(R) stores in eight states as
of February 2, 2013.


SEQUENOM INC: Issued 6.4MM Shares in December 2010 Under Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sequenom, Inc., said in a Form 10-K Annual Report for its fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2013, disclosed that in December
2010, the Company issued 6,408,000 shares of its common stock at a
fair value of $8.03 per share, which represented the remaining
portion of a court-approved share settlement to a plaintiffs'
class in the class action securities lawsuits consolidated under
the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In July 2010 the Company issued 200,000 shares of common stock at
a fair value of $5.81 per share, which represented the portion of
the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees not covered by insurance to
resolve the various derivative actions filed in federal and state
court. The shares were issued in accordance with the court's
stipulation of settlement.

In June 2010 the Company issued 409,000 shares of common stock at
a fair value of $5.94 per share, which represented a portion of
the court-approved share settlement in the class action securities
lawsuits consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc.
Securities Litigation. The shares were issued to counsel for the
plaintiffs' class in accordance with the court's order awarding
attorneys' fees.

In May 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District. of
California entered an order approving the stipulation of
settlement reached in the class action securities lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 3:09-cv-00921 LAB-WMC. Pursuant to the
stipulation, Sequenom agreed to pay $14.0 million in cash, which
was funded by insurance proceeds, and issued in aggregate 6.8
million shares of Sequenom common stock to the plaintiffs' class
with a fair value of $53.9 million, which was recognized as
litigation settlement expense in the consolidated statement of
operations during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Additionally, in May 2010 Sequenom entered into a stipulation of
settlement to resolve the various derivative actions filed in
federal and state court. Pursuant to the financial terms of the
stipulation with In re Sequenom, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
Sequenom agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys a total of $2.5
million in fees, of which $1.0 million was funded by insurance
proceeds.  Of the remaining $1.5 million, which was recognized as
litigation expense in the consolidated statement of operations
during the year ended December 31, 2010, $338,000 was paid by
Sequenom in cash and $1.2 million was paid through the issuance of
200,000 shares of Sequenom common stock at a fair value of $5.81
per share.

San Diego, California-based Sequenom, Inc., is a life sciences
company providing innovative genetic analysis solutions to improve
healthcare.  It has two operating segments: (a) Molecular
Diagnostics, in which Sequenom's wholly owned molecular diagnostic
reference laboratory, Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC
or Sequenom CMM performs molecular diagnostic testing services
utilizing its laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) which are
currently focused on noninvasive prenatal and women's health
related diagnostics and ophthalmology-related diagnostics and
plans to develop or acquire additional diagnostic tests in those
and other fields including autoimmunity, neurology and oncology;
and (b) Genetic Analysis, which currently provides research use
only products, services and applications that translate the
results of genomic science into solutions for biomedical research,
translational research, molecular medicine applications, and other
areas of research, including agricultural and livestock.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Agreed to Pay "Karayan" Suit Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc. disclosed in its March 4, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it agreed to pay to the
plaintiff of the Karayan Litigation an immaterial amount to avoid
additional litigation costs.

Over the past two years, class action litigation has been
initiated against a number of banks and retailers, including some
of the Company's clients, alleging that "mobile termination" text
messages violate the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act or
TCPA, which seeks to protect the privacy interests of residential
telephone subscribers.

When a business receives a text message indicating that the sender
wishes to "opt out" of further text communications from the
business, a mobile termination text message may be transmitted
automatically in order to confirm that the business received the
opt-out message and will not send any additional text messages.

On October 21, 2011, the Company received a notice from GameStop
Corp. and GameStop Inc. (together referred to as GameStop)
requesting indemnification in connection with a class action
litigation entitled Karayan v. GameStop Corp. and GameStop Inc.
(the Karayan Litigation), which had been initiated against
GameStop in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of
Texas based in part on mobile termination text messages.  The
Company is not a named defendant or other party in the Karayan
Litigation.

On January 6, 2012, the Company delivered a letter agreement to
GameStop, in which the Company agreed to indemnify GameStop in
relation to the Karayan Litigation.  After investigation, the
Company determined to deliver the letter agreement dated
January 6, 2012, in order to, pursuant to the provisions of the
Company's Master Pricing Agreement with GameStop, (a) indemnify
GameStop for damages, losses and fees resulting from the aspects
of the Karayan Litigation relating to mobile termination text
messages and (b) confirm that the Company will take sole control
over the defense, and any settlement, of the Karayan Litigation.
In addition to claims relating to mobile termination text
messages, the Karayan Litigation also asserts claims alleging that
GameStop is liable to certain of its customers because it failed
to obtain prior express consent to the delivery of text messages.
In the letter agreement, the Company reserved its rights
concerning any argument that the Company may have as to its
obligation to indemnify GameStop with respect to the aspects of
the Karayan Litigation relating to the alleged lack of prior
express consent.

On February 12, 2013, the court dismissed with prejudice the
claims initiated against GameStop in the Karayan Litigation.  For
the purpose of avoiding additional litigation costs, the Company
agreed to pay to the plaintiff, on behalf of GameStop, an
immaterial amount, and the Company effectively have been relieved
of any further indemnification obligations to GameStop relating to
the Karayan Litigation.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.  SoundBite
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc. is defending a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to
the Company's March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On April 5, 2012, a class action litigation, the Club Texting
Litigation, was filed against numerous defendants, including the
Company.  On April 6, 2012, a related class action litigation, the
TextPower Litigation, was filed against numerous defendants,
including the Company.  On May 10, 2012, a further related class
action litigation, the iSpeedBuy litigation, was filed against
numerous defendants, including the Company.  On June 14, 2012, a
consolidated class action complaint, referred to as the A2P SMS
Antitrust Litigation, was filed which amended and consolidated the
Club Texting Litigation, TextPower Litigation and iSpeedBuy
Litigation.  In the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, the Company is
named as alleged successor-in-interest to 2ergo Americas, which
the Company acquired in February 2012.  The A2P SMS Antitrust
Litigation alleges that the named mobile telecom companies and
alleged aggregators violated the Sherman Act through the use of
various common short code requirements related to the sending of
text messages by businesses to consumers.  Further, the A2P SMS
Antitrust Litigation is seeking confirmation of a class of
entities and persons who leased a common short code from Neustar,
Inc. and sent or received text messages through one or more
aggregators.

The Company has served an indemnification claim on 2ergo Group
plc, the former parent company of 2ergo Americas, in relation to
the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, but the Company intends to
defend vigorously against the claims in the A2P SMS Antitrust
Litigation that allege violations of the Sherman Act.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible for the Company
to estimate the amount of damages, losses, fees and other expenses
that the Company will incur as the result of the A2P SMS Antitrust
Litigation, but such an amount could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial condition and
operating results.  Even if the Company succeed in defending
against the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, the Company is likely to
incur substantial costs and the Company's management's attention
will be diverted from its operations.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.  SoundBite
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Relieved of Liability in "Sager" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc. said in its March 4, 2013, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that it has been relieved of any
liability relating to the Sager Litigation.

On January 11, 2012, a class action litigation (the Sager
Litigation) was filed against Bank of America and the Company as
co-defendants.  The Sager Litigation alleged that the Company and
Bank of America sent text messages to the plaintiff without the
plaintiff's prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  On June 18, 2012, the Company
received a notice from Bank of America, requesting indemnification
in connection with the Sager Litigation.

On June 21, 2012, the Company moved to stay the litigation
pending, among other things, a determination by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in relation to the Company's
Petition for Declaratory Ruling on mobile termination messages.
In response to the motion, the plaintiff agreed to seek a stay of
the litigation until such time as the FCC has ruled on the
Company's petition for Declaratory Ruling.

On December 14, 2012, the Company was notified that the Sager
Litigation had been dismissed.  As a result, the Company has been
relieved of any liability, including any indemnification
obligations to Bank of America, relating to the Sager Litigation.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.  SoundBite
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Consolidated RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc. and other defendants are awaiting court
decisions on their motions to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's
March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion") and Apollo Global
Management, LLC ("Apollo").  The complaint alleges (1) violations
of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act by all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations
of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-
Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such
act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion,
Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting
violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement
of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs,
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit,
and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies").  The complaint alleges (1) violations of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act by all defendants,
and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card
Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail
fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card
Companies; (3) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card
Companies; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing
Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Companies; (5) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17602 by the Membership Companies and the
Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of lawsuit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.  In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants.  The defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs'
responses to the motions to dismiss were due on February 7, 2013,
and the reply briefs were due on March 7, 2013.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion Group, LLC,
Apollo Global Management, LLC (collectively, the "Frank Membership
Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com,
Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc.,
FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory
Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc.,
Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United
Online, Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the
"Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech
Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies").  The
complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by all defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of RICO by the Frank Credit Card Companies;
(3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire fraud and
bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4) violation of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (5) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such
act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (6) violation of
California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the
Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies; and
(7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status.  The plaintiff's response to the show cause
order was due February 15, 2013.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation, headquartered in Woodland Hills, California.
United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider
of consumer products and services over the Internet under a number
of brands, including FTD, Interflora, Flying Flowers, Flowers
Direct, Drake Algar, Classmates, schoolFeed, StayFriends, Trombi,
MyPoints, NetZero, and Juno.


UNITED ONLINE: Distribution in "Michaels" Suit Completed in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc. said in its March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that distribution of settlement to all
claimants in the class action lawsuit brought in California was
expected to be completed in March 2013.

In October 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as Memory
Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online, Inc.
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  In December
2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action complaint
against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and
United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of Washington, Kings County,
alleging causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of California Civil Code section 1694,
dealing with dating services contracts. In both actions, the
plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages.  In April 2009,
the United States District Court of the Western District of
Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez actions and
designated the Michaels action as the lead case.  In March 2010,
the parties entered into a comprehensive class action settlement
agreement.  In February 2011, the court denied final approval of
such settlement agreement.  In March 2011, the parties entered
into a revised settlement agreement and, in July 2011, the court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the revised
settlement agreement.  The parties subsequently modified the
settlement agreement in August 2011.

In June 2012, the District Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and certifying the class.  In July
2012, four separate notices of appeal of the District Court order
were filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  Such appeals have since been resolved and the order
granting final approval of the settlement and certifying the class
is final.  The settlement administrator is in the process of
paying the claimants.  The distribution to all claimants was
expected to be completed in March 2013.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation, headquartered in Woodland Hills, California.
United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider
of consumer products and services over the Internet under a number
of brands, including FTD, Interflora, Flying Flowers, Flowers
Direct, Drake Algar, Classmates, schoolFeed, StayFriends, Trombi,
MyPoints, NetZero, and Juno.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Franchisees' Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., continues to defend lawsuit filed by
franchisees 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: "UPS and our subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc.
are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the
rebranding of The UPS Store franchises.  In the Morgate case, the
plaintiffs are 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to
The UPS Store and a certified class of all franchisees who did
rebrand. The trial court entered judgment against a bellwether
individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. The
trial court granted our motion for summary judgment against the
certified class, which was reversed in January 2012.

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from whatever
remaining aspects of this case proceeds, including: (1) we are
vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of
meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what
evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present.
Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to
determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity."


UNITED PARCEL: Defends Suits in Canada Over Inadequate Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits in Canada alleging inadequate disclosure concerning the
existence and cost of brokerage services it provided, 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 Canada, four purported class-action cases
were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007)
and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September
2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the
Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted
and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the
2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the
motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended
that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation is in the
earliest stages. We deny all liability and are vigorously
defending the two outstanding cases. There are multiple factors
that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if
any, that may result from these matters, including: (1) we are
vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number
of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved
questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate
resolution of these matters. Accordingly, at this time, we are not
able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result
from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any,
would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operation or liquidity."


UNITED PARCEL: Intends to Pursue Dismissal of Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., intends to seek dismissal of a Third
Amended Complaint filed by plaintiffs in New York alleging price-
fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding
services, 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 January 2008, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the
provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in
this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants.
UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants
named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint in October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In
August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims
relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to
amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November
2012. We intend to file another motion to dismiss, and to
otherwise vigorously defend ourselves in this case. There are
multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the
amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters
including: (1) the court has dismissed the complaint once but has
not considered the adequacy of the amended complaint; (2) the
scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are
significant legal questions about the adequacy and standing of the
putative class representatives; and (4) we believe that we have a
number of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time,
we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that
may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss,
if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity."


UNITED STATES: Army Corps of Engineers Sued Over Flooding
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Peklo, writing for KTIV News, reports that the flooding
along the Missouri River in the summer of 2011 cost cities and
towns, up and down the river, a lot of money.  A law firm, in
Missouri, says it will sue the federal government -- specifically
the Army Corps of Engineers -- to get money to cover the losses.

A law firm in Saint Joseph, Missouri, thinks the US Army Corps of
Engineers is responsible for some of the damage done by the rising
Missouri River in 20-11.  They've decided to file a class-action
suit, and will be joined by several communities along the Missouri
River.

For South Sioux City administrator Lance Hedquist, the decision to
jump in seemed like an easy one.

"I think the attorneys certainly feel confident that they will be
successful, so they've taken on a big undertaking, with this
action they're taking," said Mr. Hedquist.

Joining the lawsuit won't cost the city a thing, as the law firm
is taking on all of the upfront costs itself.  If they win, the
firm will get about a third of the settlement.

"We thought it was justifiable on behalf of the taxpayers of South
Sioux City to take this action," said Mr. Hedquist.

Union County, South Dakota, leaders have also voted to join the
lawsuit.  In Sioux City, "Bev's on the River" has recovered from
the flood, but they're still out a lot of money.

"$2 million in revenue and another $1 million in damages," said
Jesse Miller, COO for Bev's.

So, management decided they could get on board, as well.

"We decided to get into the lawsuit.  It's a class-action lawsuit
and decided there's no up front costs to it and see what becomes
of it," said Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller says he's willing to wait this one out to, and he's
doing so with cautious optimism.

"This would just be payback from all those losses that we've
already written off.  So, it'd be a great surprise if anything
came of it," said Mr. Miller.

With millions potentially at stake for cities like South Sioux,
and businesses like Bev's, Mr. Hedquist is confident that the
attorneys will be able to present a compelling case, even if it
takes a little bit of time.

"From a taxpayer's standpoint, it'd be foolish not to apply and
try to get funds," said Mr. Hedquist.

Even with no time frame for a judge to hear the case, it's a
battle Mr. Hedquist says the city is ready for.  The Army Corps of
Engineers' spokesperson says the agency can't comment on the suit.


UNITED STATES: Sioux City Join Won't Flooding Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
KTIV reports that during a closed session of the Sioux City
council, on April 1, leaders made the decision not to participate
in the class action suit against the Army Corps of Engineers.

The city's legal department contacted several other
municipalities, like Kansas City, Council Bluffs, and Omaha to
find out whether they planned to join the suit being filed by a
Kansas City law firm.

Although the cost to those participating is contingent on winning
the case, the city's attorney says the council didn't feel it was
the right time to participate.

"Whether or not expenses, how they're going to be controlling
those, there's still some things that need to be determined.  As
an overall perspective, and I don't want to go into great detail
really as to why the council chose not to participate, I think it
was an abundance of factors and they had to weigh everything to
make that decision," said Nicole Jensen-Harris.

Ms. Jensen-Harris added that the council hasn't given any
indication that they plan to pursue their own suit against the
Army Corps.


UNITED STATES: Airport Managers Have Yet to Decide on FAA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Risher and Yolanda Jones, writing for Avionics Intelligence,
report that officials at Mid-South regional airports haven't
decided whether to go to court to keep their control towers open,
but they fear the impending closure could make their runways
dangerous.

Millington and Jackson, Tenn., airport managers said they're
tracking the class-action lawsuit led by airport officials at
Spokane, Wash., to keep the Federal Aviation Administration from
closing contractor-operated control towers at 149 airports in the
nation.

Facing tower closures April 21 at Millington and May 5 at Jackson
and Olive Branch, operators are warning of potential flight delays
and life-threatening safety consequences.  Also on the chopping
block are towers in Mississippi at Greenville, set to close
April 21, and Tupelo on May 5.

The FAA plans to pull the plug on the 149 contract towers
indefinitely as part of $600 million in cost cutting.  While these
are not busy, 24-7 operations like Memphis International Airport,
managers said the airports serve a steady stream of small planes,
private jets and military aircraft.

Jackson-Madison County (Tenn.) Airport Authority executive
director Steve Smith said the city's attorney has been advised
about legal action stemming from the Spokane lawsuit.  Airport
executives question whether the FAA thoroughly vetted the
closings.

"It's like going around and taking out all the traffic lights or
pulling up all the stop signs: No control," Mr. Smith said.

Citing estimates that three or four fatalities could cost more
than the FAA is saving, Mr. Smith said, "We're just trying to make
sure we don't end up being on the 'CBS Evening News' as one of the
first.  I'm working to make that not happen."

The FAA says it will close the contract towers indefinitely to
meet automatic budget cuts resulting from the so-called sequester.
The agency also ordered furloughs of controllers, although grants
continue under the Airport Improvement Program.  These grants fund
capital improvements at airports large and small.

Lawsuits opposing the closings were combined into a class-action
lawsuit after Spokane, the Central Illinois Regional Airport and
three Florida airports filed separate complaints asking courts to
stop the FAA closures.  The class-action case is pending in the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

FAA officials have declined to comment, although the agency has
advanced a plan to keep track of flights after the towers close.

Responsibility for flights in and out of airports that lose tower
staffing would be picked up by centralized FAA facilities.
However, controllers say delays are likely with fewer personnel
handling more traffic.  That's also led to concern about danger on
local runways in the event smaller and slower airplanes approach
fast-moving aircraft without any guidance from local air towers.

Memphis Naval Air Station at Millington shut down in 1995, but
military flights still account for 60 percent of the 30,000 annual
takeoffs and landings.  It's used for refueling and training stops
by cross-country military flights and for maneuvers by the
Tennessee Air National Guard 164th Airlift Wing, based at Memphis,
which is ramping up with a new aircraft, the $200 million-plus C-
17A Globemaster III.

In recent weeks, Millington airport executive director Rodney
Hendrix said, the 8,000-foot runway has accommodated F-18
fighters, Osprey helicopter-turboprop hybrids and Harrier fixed-
wingvertical/short takeoff and landing aircraft.

It's also a backup for cargo flights headed out of the FedEx
Express world hub at Memphis, in addition to handling assorted
small, private planes.

All those sophisticated aircraft typically move under the watchful
eyes of controllers in the Millington airport tower.

"That's not a large number of takeoffs and landings, but a good
deal of that is still military stuff," Mr. Hendrix said.  "If
that's the only thing out here, it's OK.  But you start mixing
some small planes in with them, somebody needs to be looking out
for them."

He wasn't sounding an alarm, but he said he hoped the closure
could somehow be averted, whether by political compromise or legal
intervention.

Olive Branch Airport averages 230 takeoffs and landings a day on a
6,000-foot runway.

"Closing the tower will obviously impact the safety aspect
somewhat," Mayor Sam Rikard said.  "The Olive Branch airport is
the second-busiest airport in the state.  We have historically led
the state in take offs and landings with or without a tower. I
don't expect that to change."

McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport in Jackson has 50,000 to 65,000
takeoffs and landings a year, daily roundtrips to Memphis and
Nashville on Seaport Airlines, and an Army National Guard unit
flying Kiowa helicopters.

Mr. Smith said airport officials were rushing recently to complete
updates of pilot instructions and infrastructure, to prepare for
uncontrolled landings and takeoffs.


VISA INC: Settlement Proponents Balk at Merchants' Websites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Business News, reports
that attorneys pushing a class-action settlement with Visa Inc.
and MasterCard over merchant transaction fees asked a federal
judge to stop retail groups from posting what they say is
inaccurate information on websites meant to drum up opposition to
the deal.

The law firms representing the proposed class of merchants say
trade organizations including the National Association of
Convenience Stores, National Grocers Association and National
Community Pharmacists Associations, which want to derail the deal,
are putting retailers at risk by urging them to opt out of the
settlement without advising them of their rights.

"These unauthorized and misleading communications from the trade
association plaintiffs pose a real threat of confusing class
members and undermining the court-approved notice processes," the
firms said in a letter filed in federal court on March 29.  The
firms are Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Robins, Kaplan, Miller
& Ciresi LLP; and Berger & Montague PC, which helped negotiate the
settlement and serve as co-counsel for the proposed class.

The firms want the court to order the trade groups to disclose on
their websites that their sites are not court-approved, provide a
link to a separate court-approved website, confer with the class
attorneys regarding communication they plan to distribute in the
future before dissemination and correct factual errors.

Jeff Shinder, a managing partner with the law firm Constantine
Cannon LLP, which is representing the National Association of
Convenience Stores and other plaintiff trade groups that oppose
the deal, said on April 1 that there is "nothing remotely
misleading about the trade association sites."

"Proponents of the settlement are afraid of allowing contrary
views to be disseminated to the class," Mr. Shinder said.  "They
are attempting to impose some form of regulation on the ability of
the objecting plaintiffs to communicate with their members and
that raises first amendment issues."

The settlement, announced in July, has sparked opposition from
large merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. and Home
Depot Inc. as well as several trade groups that originally brought
the litigation in 2005 against Visa, MasterCard and several banks
that issue the payment networks' credit cards.

Critics of the deal argue that the settlement would do little to
keep down the cost of so-called swipe fees, which merchants pay
each time a customer pays with a credit card.  They also worry
that the deal grants overly broad releases from future litigation
to the defendants, making it difficult for merchants to sue Visa
and MasterCard in the future.

Some of the groups have posted information on websites in recent
weeks urging merchants to file objections to the deal in U.S.
District Court as well as opt out of the settlement.  For example,
the National Association of Convenience Stores, National Grocers
Association, National Restaurant Association and other groups urge
merchants to file opt-out letters that can be filled out and
submitted to the court through the website merchantsobject.com.

The merchant groups hope to drum up enough opposition to convince
U.S. District Judge John Gleeson to deny approval of the
settlement.  A fairness hearing to determine whether the
settlement should be granted final approval is scheduled for
Sept. 12.

Judge Gleeson granted preliminary approval to the deal in
November.

Attorneys for the proposed class said in their filing that the
site "attempts to influence visitors to opt-out and object based
on a one-sided and incomplete presentation without referring the
visitor to the neutral, factual and complete information about the
case" included in the official court-approved notice sent out to
merchants eligible for the settlement.

But Doug Kantor, who serves as counsel to the National Association
of Convenience Stores, said merchantsobject.com is intended to
give merchants the "unvarnished truth" about the settlement.

"There's very little benefit in this settlement for merchants and
there's a lot not to like," Mr. Kantor said.

Spokesmen for Visa and MasterCard declined to comment on April 1.

By opting out, merchants forfeit their right to receive a cut of
the $6.05 billion that Visa, MasterCard and the banks have
proposed paying to the class.  However, merchants are unable to
opt out of rule changes that Visa and MasterCard have already made
under the settlement, including the elimination of a ban they had
against surcharging customers who pay with credit cards.


VOLVO: Judge Allows Sunroof Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge in New Jersey has allowed to move forward a class-
action suit that asserts sunroofs in thousands of Volvos were
prone to water leaks, which could compromise a crucial safety
system.

The suit contends that the company concealed the problem from
consumers.  The suit claims that the problem affects "tens of
thousands" of vehicles, including the S40, S60, S80, V50 and V70
from 2004-13 or when the models were discontinued.  Also covered
are the 2003-13 XC 90 models and the 2005-11 V50.

The allegation is that a flawed drainage system allowed water to
enter the passenger compartment where it sometimes damaged a
crucial part of the electronic stability control, causing it to
malfunction.  The stability control uses sensors to determine if
the front or rear of the vehicle is moving in a direction that is
at odds with what the steering wheel indicates.  Then it would
apply the brake -- typically on one wheel -- to try and correct
the slide.

The suit was filed in 2010 in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by Joanne Neale of Needham, Mass., and
seven other owners.  The suit argues that a series of technical
service bulletins sent to dealers detailed the defect and owners
should be reimbursed for repairs and any loss of resale value.

Volvo had denied allegations of any wrongdoing and asked that the
suit be dismissed.

In a ruling on March 26, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh rejected
Volvo's request, saying the issues raised by the suit "are more
than sufficient" for the case to continue.  The judge ruled
against a request by the plaintiffs' lawyers that all owners
nationwide be included in the suit under the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act because Volvo's United States headquarters is in New
Jersey.

Judge Cavanaugh concluded that New Jersey's law cannot be applied
nationwide.  But he did allow the case to move forward by
certifying class actions for owners in six states: Massachusetts,
Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, California and Maryland. Those are
the states in which the plaintiffs named in the suit bought their
vehicles.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Matt Mendelsohn of Roseland, N.J.,
wrote in an e-mail that "we are exploring our options regarding
additional states but our intention is to obtain relief for all
owners in the U.S."


ZIONS BANCORP: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation continues to defend various class action
lawsuits, 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: "We are subject to putative class action
claims and similar broader claims. Current putative class actions
and similar claims include the following:

   * two complaints relating to allegedly wrongful acts in our
     processing of overdraft fees on debit card transactions in
     which the plaintiffs seek monetary awards on the basis of
     various common law claims,

     -- Barlow, et. al. v. Zions First National Bank and Zions
        Bancorporation, pending in the United States District
        Court for the District of Utah, and

     -- Sadlier, et. al. v. National Bank of Arizona, pending in
        the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, County of
        Maricopa;

   * a complaint relating to our banking relationships with
     customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing
     practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary
     award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First
     National Bank, et. al., pending in the United States
     District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and

   * a complaint arising from our banking relationships with
     Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled
     by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the
     liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from us, on
     the basis of aiding and abetting liability, for monetary
     damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated
     by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian
     Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et.
     al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of
     Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy
     Court for the Western District of Washington.

"Discovery has commenced in the Barlow and Reyes cases, but not in
the Sadlier or Meridian Funds cases. Motions for and against class
certification have been made in the Reyes case. A third overdraft
case, Starr, et. al. v. California Bank & Trust, was dismissed by
a Superior Court for the State of California in the fourth quarter
of 2012."


ZIPCAR INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Reed" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled
Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's
March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-
11340-RGS.  The lawsuit alleged that the Company's late fees were
unlawful penalties.  The lawsuit purported to assert claims
against the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
for declaratory judgment, and for unfair and deceptive trade
practices under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A, and requested
certification of a class consisting of all Zipcar members who have
incurred late fees at the presently imposed rates.  The plaintiff
sought unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the
revenues and/or profits that the Company allegedly received from
imposing late fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees
were void, unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On November 10, 2011,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on July 31, 2012, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing the
lawsuit with prejudice.  On August 29, 2012, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts and the appeal is currently pending
before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral argument
scheduled on March 5, 2013.

While the Company intends to contest the plaintiff's appeal
vigorously, neither the outcome of this appeal nor the amount and
range of potential damages or exposure associated with the
litigation if the appeal is successful can be assessed at this
time.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Zipcar, Inc. --
http://www.zipcar.com/-- operates a car sharing network.  Founded
in 2000, the Company provides the freedom of "wheels when you want
them" to over 775,000 members, whom the Company refers to as
Zipsters.  The Company operates its membership-based business in
20 major metropolitan areas and on more than 300 college campuses
in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain and
Austria.


ZIPCAR INC: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zipcar, Inc.'s settlement agreement to resolve merger-related
class action lawsuits is yet to be filed, according to the
Company's March 4, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 31, 2012, Zipcar, Avis Budget Group, Inc.,  and
Millennium Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Avis Budget, or Merger Sub, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, pursuant to which, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the merger agreement, Avis Budget agreed
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Zipcar for $12.25 per
share in cash, without interest, and pursuant to which Merger Sub
will be merged with and into Zipcar with Zipcar continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avis
Budget.

On January 4, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
by Robert Karrasch, an alleged stockholder of the Company
(Karrasch v. Zipcar, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-0038-BLS2).
The lawsuit alleges, among other things: (i) that the members of
the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement,
that the merger consideration negotiated in the merger agreement
improperly undervalues the Company, that the Company's
stockholders will not receive adequate or fair value for their
Zipcar common stock in the merger, and that the terms of the
merger agreement impose improper deal protection devices that will
preclude competing offers, and (ii) that Avis Budget and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the merger until such time as defendants comply
with their obligation to maximize shareholder value and disclose
all material information regarding the merger, an award of
damages, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts'
fees and expenses.  On Jan. 25, 2013, the parties to this lawsuit
filed with the court an agreed-upon order, which the court signed,
in which the plaintiff agreed not to seek any relief in the
Massachusetts courts prior to the closing of the merger, and to
seek any such relief in the Delaware courts.  In exchange,
defendants agreed to provide plaintiff with any discovery provided
to the plaintiffs in the pending Delaware proceedings, and not to
oppose plaintiff's attempt to intervene in the Delaware
litigation.  On February 21, 2013, the plaintiff moved to
intervene in the Delaware litigation.

On January 7, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Middlesex County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, by Blair Holbrook, an alleged stockholder of the
Company (Holbrook v. Zipcar, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-
0060).  The lawsuit alleges, among other things: (i) that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the
merger agreement, that the merger consideration negotiated in the
merger agreement improperly undervalues the Company, that the
Company's stockholders will not receive adequate or fair value for
their Zipcar common stock in the merger, and that the terms of the
merger agreement impose improper deal protection devices that will
preclude competing offers, and (ii) that Zipcar, Avis Budget and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction
against the consummation of the merger until such time as the
Company implements a procedure to obtain the highest possible
value for stockholders and disclose all material information
regarding the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, an award
of damages, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.  In connection with the agreed order
in the Karrasch matter, counsel for plaintiff Holbrook has agreed
to consolidate this matter with the Karrasch matter, and therefore
to subject this litigation to the same terms of the agreed order
in that matter.  On February 21, 2013, the plaintiff moved to
intervene in the Delaware litigation.

On January 8, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Martin
Bertisch, an alleged stockholder of the Company (Bertisch v.
Zipcar, Inc. et al., Transaction ID 48803240, C.A. No. 8185).  The
lawsuit alleges: (i) that the members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, that the merger
consideration negotiated in the merger agreement improperly
undervalues the Company, that the Company's stockholders will not
likely receive adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common
stock in the merger, and that the terms of the merger agreement
impose improper deal protection devices that will preclude
competing offers, and (ii) that Zipcar, Avis Budget and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the merger, rescission in the event that the
merger has already been consummated prior to the entry of the
court's final judgment or an award of rescissory damages, and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts'
fees and expenses.

On January 8, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Bruce H. Paul,
an alleged stockholder of the Company (Paul v. Zipcar, Inc. et
al., Transaction ID 48818538, C.A. No. 8192).  The lawsuit
alleges: (i) that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, that the merger consideration
negotiated in the merger agreement improperly undervalues the
Company, that the Company's stockholders will not likely receive
adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common stock in the
merger, and that the terms of the merger agreement impose improper
deal protection devices that will preclude competing offers and
(ii) that Zipcar, Avis Budget and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
merger, rescission in the event that the merger has already been
consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment or an
award of rescissory damages, an award of damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On January 9, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Joseph Morcos,
an alleged stockholder of the Company (Morcos v. Zipcar, Inc. et
al., Transaction ID 48840033, C.A. No. 8200).  The lawsuit
alleges: (i) that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, that the merger consideration
negotiated in the merger agreement improperly undervalues the
Company, that the Company's stockholders will not likely receive
adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common stock in the
merger, and that the terms of the merger agreement impose improper
deal protection devices that will preclude competing offers and
(ii) that Zipcar, Avis Budget and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
merger, rescission in the event that the merger has already been
consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment or an
award of rescissory damages, an award of damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On January 16, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Allen
Srulowitz, an alleged stockholder of the Company (Srulowitz v.
Zipcar, Inc. et al., Transaction ID 48977007, C.A. No. 8226).  The
lawsuit alleges: (i) that the members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, that the merger
consideration negotiated in the merger agreement improperly
undervalues the Company, that the Company's stockholders will not
likely receive adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common
stock in the merger, and that the terms of the merger agreement
impose improper deal protection devices that will preclude
competing offers and (ii) that Zipcar and Avis Budget aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, an injunction against the consummation
of the merger until such time as the Company implements a
procedure to obtain the highest possible value for stockholders,
rescission of the merger agreement, and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On January 16, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Evan Hecker, an
alleged stockholder of the Company (Hecker v. Zipcar, Inc. et al.,
Transaction ID 48980399, C.A. No. 8227).  The lawsuit alleges: (i)
that the members of the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, that the merger consideration
negotiated in the merger agreement improperly undervalues the
Company, that the Company's stockholders will not likely receive
adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common stock in the
merger, and that the terms of the merger agreement impose improper
deal protection devices that will preclude competing offers and
(ii) that Avis Budget and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the merger
until such time as the Company implements a procedure to obtain
the highest possible value for stockholders, rescission in the
event that the merger has already been consummated prior to the
entry of the court's final judgment or an award of rescissory
damages, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On January 17, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Jim Billups, an
alleged stockholder of the Company (Billups v. Zipcar, Inc. et
al., Transaction ID 48989086, C.A. No. 8229). The lawsuit alleges:
(i) that the members of the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, that the merger consideration
negotiated in the merger agreement improperly undervalues the
Company, that the Company's stockholders will not likely receive
adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common stock in the
merger, and that the terms of the merger agreement impose improper
deal protection devices that will preclude competing offers and
(ii) that Avis Budget and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
merger, an order directing the Company's board of directors to
maximize shareholder value in any proposed sale of the Company,
and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' and
experts' fees.

On January 25, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an order granting the request by each of the six
Delaware plaintiffs to have their lawsuits consolidated into one
matter, now entitled In re Zipcar, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 8185-VCP, Transaction ID 49105339.  On January 30, 2013,
the Delaware plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated amended
complaint, or the amended complaint.  The amended complaint
alleges, among other things: (i) that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders
in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, that the merger
consideration negotiated in the merger agreement improperly
undervalues the Company, that certain members of the board of
directors put their financial interest ahead of that of the
stockholders by favoring a sale over an option for long term
growth, that the Company's stockholders will not likely receive
adequate or fair value for their Zipcar common stock in the
merger, that the terms of the merger agreement impose improper
deal protection devices that will preclude competing offers, and
that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on January
22, 2013, failed to disclose all material information necessary
for stockholders to make an informed vote on the proposed merger;
and (ii) that Avis Budget and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
merger, rescission in the event that the merger has already been
consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment or an
award of rescissory damages, and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 26, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company agreed to settle all of the
pending litigation relating to the merger with Avis Budget.  The
settlement provides, among other things, that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for
the conditional certification of the merger-related litigation as
a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23
on behalf of a class consisting of all record and beneficial
owners of the Company's common stock during the period beginning
on December 31, 2012, through the date of the consummation of the
proposed merger, including any and all of their respective
successors in interest, predecessors and representatives, and the
release of all asserted claims.  As part of the settlement, the
Company has agreed to make certain additional disclosures related
to the proposed merger and to waive a provision of the
confidentiality agreement between the Company and one of the other
potential acquirers that would prohibit that party from requesting
a waiver of its standstill obligations under the confidentiality
agreement.  The additional disclosures were made in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2013.  The
asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court.  There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  The settlement
will not affect the merger consideration to be received by the
Company's stockholders.

In connection with the settlement, the Company says it may be
liable for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs; however, as
of this time any such fee award is uncertain and no reasonable
estimate can be made.  The Company carries a director and officer
insurance policy which may cover some or all of the cost of this
matter subject to a $500,000 retention.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Zipcar, Inc. --
http://www.zipcar.com/-- operates a car sharing network.  Founded
in 2000, the Company provides the freedom of "wheels when you want
them" to over 775,000 members, whom the Company refers to as
Zipsters.  The Company operates its membership-based business in
20 major metropolitan areas and on more than 300 college campuses
in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain and
Austria.


                             *********

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  * * *