CAR_Public/130415.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 73

                             Headlines



AIR TRANSPORT: ABX Unit Still Awaits OK of Deal in Workers' Suit
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
AMERICAN APPAREL: "Heupel" Class Suit Currently in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: "Partida" Class Suit Currently in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: "Ruiz" Suit Now Proceeding in Arbitration

AMERICAN APPAREL: "Truong" Suit Now Proceeding in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
ATLANTIC POWER: Faces C$208.5-Mil. Shareholder Class Action
AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit

BRASKEM SA: Expects Ruling in Union's 2005 Class Suits by 2014
BRASKEM SA: Union's 2010 Actions in Fact-Finding & Appeals Phase
BRAVO BRIO: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Iowa
DOWNTOWN LA MOTORS: Technicians Get Favorable Ruling in Wage Suit
EXTRA SPACE: N.D. Cal. Court Narrows Claims in "Martinez" Suit

FLAGSTAR BANCORP: RESPA-Violation Suit vs. Units Remains Pending
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Settles ERISA Violation Suit for $3 Million
FORD MOTOR: Merchant Law Group Launches Sudden Acceleration Suit
HALCON ENERGY: Contract Breach Suit Remanded to Mercer County Ct.
HARVEST NATURAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in Texas

HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS: Special Master Needed in Settlement
HOME DEPOT: Recalls 11,300 CE Tech Riser Cable Due to Fire Hazard
HONDA FINANCE: Illinois Judge Tosses TCPA Class Action
HSBC FINANCE: Securities Suit vs. Predecessor Remains Pending
HSBC FINANCE: Initiates Refund Program to Borrowers in New York

HSBC FINANCE: Parties in TCPA Violations Suit in Discovery Phase
HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in MDL 1720
HSBC FINANCE: Litigations Over Debt Cancellation Remain Pending
HSBC USA: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
HSBC USA: Appeal in "Levin" Overdraft Litigation Remains Pending

HSBC USA: Still Defends Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
HSBC USA: Expects Oral Argument in Madoff-Related Suits in 2013
INTEL CORP: Says Comcast Ruling Supports Antitrust Suit Argument
JAPANESE AUTO MAKERS: Defective Air Bag Inflaters Prompt Recall
MANCHESTER TANK: Recalls 7,500 Propane Cylinders Due to Fire Risk

MELA SCIENCES: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
MEZENTCO INC: Law Firms Mull Class Suit Over Chemotherapy Drugs
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jr. Seau Suit Merged With Concussion Class Actions
NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Denies Stop-and-Frisk Quota Claims
NORTHEAST HEALTH: Capital Region Nurses Get Settlement Checks

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Miller" Suit
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defends Consumer Antitrust MDL in Texas
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defends Suits Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: To Appeal Order in Suit vs. Online Travel Cos.
PFIZER INC: Insurers Improperly Denied Class Action Status

POLK COUNTY, FL: Clerk of Court Faces Class Action Over Fees
POLYONE CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Did Not Seek Writ of Certiorari
SPARTECH CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Plane Safety Class Action

STAR SCIENTIFIC: Responds to Class Action Solicitations
VISA INC: CCB Signs 400th Client in $7.25-Bil. Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Loses Bid to Dismiss MedCap Ponzi Class Action

* Canadian Class Action Lawyer Named in Leaked Documents


                             *********


AIR TRANSPORT: ABX Unit Still Awaits OK of Deal in Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 31, 2008, a former employee of Air Transport Services
Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, ABX Air, Inc., filed a complaint against
ABX, a total of four current and former executives and managers of
ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former executives of
the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  The case was filed as a putative class
action against the defendants, and asserts violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO).  The
complaint, which was later amended to include a second former
employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an unspecified amount and
alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire illegal
immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.

On December 2, 2011, the parties agreed to settle this matter at a
conference presided over by the Court.  The settlement calls for
ABX to pay to the plaintiffs a monetary amount, which management
believes to be less than it would have cost for ABX to defend the
case at trial.  Once the plaintiffs have provided notice to the
putative class members of the settlement, the Court will hold a
hearing to consider any objections and seek final confirmation of
the settlement.

No further updates were reported in 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.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Ohio, Air Transport Services Group,
Inc. -- http://www.atsginc.com/-- provides airline operations,
aircraft leases, aircraft maintenance and other support services
primarily to the cargo transportation and package delivery
industries.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009, and August 5,
2010, against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On
February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers adding alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  HealthpointCapital,
Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and
Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants
in this action.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made
false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material facts, about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x
transaction and the Company's financial guidance following the
closing of the acquisition.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend itself against this complaint.
However, the outcome of the litigation cannot be predicted at this
time and any outcome that is adverse to the Company, regardless of
who the defendant is, could have a significant adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition and results of operations.

Alphatec Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.alphatecspine.com/-- a
medical technology company, designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets products for the surgical treatment of spine disorders,
primarily focusing on the aging spine in the United States and
internationally.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Heupel" Class Suit Currently in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit brought by Jessica Heupel against
American Apparel, Inc., is now proceeding in arbitration,
according to the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 9, 2011, Jessica Heupel, a former retail employee
filed a lawsuit on behalf of putative classes of current and
former non-exempt California employees (Jessica Heupel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Apparel Retail, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00085578-CU-OE-
CTL) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, alleging the Company failed to pay certain
wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon
separation.  The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages as follows:
(1) for alleged meal and rest period violations; (2) for alleged
failure to timely pay final wages, as well as for punitive damages
for the same; and (3) unspecified damages for unpaid minimum wage
and overtime.  In addition, the Plaintiff seeks premium pay, wages
and penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and
reimbursement of attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the
lawsuit.  This matter is now proceeding in arbitration.

American Apparel, Inc. -- http://www.americanapparel.com/-- is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of
branded fashion basic apparel and accessories for women, men,
children and babies.  The Company is based in downtown Los
Angeles, California.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Partida" Class Suit Currently in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that the class action lawsuit commenced
by Antonio Partida is now proceeding in arbitration.

On June 21, 2010, Antonio Partida, a former employee of American
Apparel, filed a lawsuit against the Company on behalf of putative
classes of current and former non-exempt California employees
(Antonio Partida, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Apparel (USA), LLC, Case No. 30-2010-
00382719-CU-OE-CXC) in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, alleging the Company failed
to pay certain wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon
separation.  The complaint further alleges that the Company failed
to timely pay wages, unlawfully deducted wages and failed to
comply with certain itemized employee wage statement provisions
and violations of unfair competition law.  The plaintiff is
seeking compensatory damages and economic and/or special damages
in an unspecified amount, premium pay, wages and penalties,
injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement of attorneys'
fees, interest and the costs of the lawsuit.  This matter is now
proceeding in arbitration.

American Apparel, Inc. -- http://www.americanapparel.com/-- is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of
branded fashion basic apparel and accessories for women, men,
children and babies.  The Company is based in downtown Los
Angeles, California.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Ruiz" Suit Now Proceeding in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Guillermo Ruiz is now
proceeding in arbitration, according to American Apparel, Inc.'s
March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 5, 2009, Guillermo Ruiz, a former employee of American
Apparel, filed a lawsuit against the Company on behalf of putative
classes of all current and former non-exempt California employees
(Guillermo Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Apparel, Inc., Case Number BC425487) in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages due for
hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof and to pay wages due upon termination to certain of
the Company's employees.  The complaint further alleges that the
Company failed to comply with certain itemized employee wage
statement provisions and violations of unfair competition law.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and economic and/or
special damages in an unspecified amount, premium pay, wages and
penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement
for attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the lawsuit.  This
matter is now proceeding in arbitration.

American Apparel, Inc. -- http://www.americanapparel.com/-- is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of
branded fashion basic apparel and accessories for women, men,
children and babies.  The Company is based in downtown Los
Angeles, California.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Truong" Suit Now Proceeding in Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Emilie Truong against American
Apparel, Inc., is now proceeding in arbitration, according to the
Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 2, 2010, Emilie Truong, a former employee of American
Apparel, filed a lawsuit against the Company on behalf of putative
classes of current and former non-exempt California employees
(Emilie Truong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Apparel, Inc. and American Apparel LLC, Case
No. BC450505) in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, alleging the Company failed to timely
provide final paychecks upon separation.   The Plaintiff is
seeking unspecified premium wages, attorneys' fees and costs,
disgorgement of profits, and an injunction against the alleged
unlawful practices.  This matter is now proceeding in arbitration.

American Apparel, Inc. -- http://www.americanapparel.com/-- is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of
branded fashion basic apparel and accessories for women, men,
children and babies.  The Company is based in downtown Los
Angeles, California.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Four putative class action lawsuits, (Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx),
Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106516 MMM (RCx), and Case
No. CV106680 GW (JCGx)) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in the Fall of 2010
against American Apparel and certain of its officers and
executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2006,
and August 17, 2010.  On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were
consolidated for all purposes into a case entitled In re American
Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM
(JCGx) (the "Federal Securities Action").  The lead plaintiff
alleges two causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section
10(b), arising out of alleged misrepresentations contained in the
Company's press releases, public filings with the SEC, and other
public statements relating to (i) the adequacy of the Company's
internal and financial control policies and procedures; (ii) the
Company's employment practices; and (iii) the effect that the
dismissal of over 1,500 employees following an Immigration and
Customs Enforcement inspection would have on the Company.  The
Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief as the Court may
deem proper.  The Company filed two motions to dismiss the Federal
Securities Action which the court granted with leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 15,
2013, and Company's response was due on April 1, 2013.  The
Federal Securities Action is covered under the Company's Directors
and Officers Liability insurance policy, subject to a deductible
and a reservation of rights.

Should the Federal Securities Action be decided against the
Company in an amount that exceeds its insurance coverage, or if
liability is imposed on grounds which fall outside the scope of
the Company's insurance coverage, the Company could not only incur
a substantial liability, but also experience an increase in
similar lawsuits and suffer reputational harm.  The Company is
unable to predict the financial outcome of these matters at this
time, and any views formed as to the viability of these claims or
the financial exposure which could result may change from time to
time as the matters proceed through their course.  However, no
assurance can be made that these matters, either individually or
together with the potential for similar lawsuits and reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial
condition and results of operations.

American Apparel, Inc. -- http://www.americanapparel.com/-- is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of
branded fashion basic apparel and accessories for women, men,
children and babies.  The Company is based in downtown Los
Angeles, California.


ATLANTIC POWER: Faces C$208.5-Mil. Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
launched on behalf of investors against Atlantic Power Corp.,
which saw its shares plunge earlier this year after it cut its
dividend.

The proposed action, filed on April 3 in Ontario Superior Court,
alleges the power generation and infrastructure company failed to
disclose to shareholders "adverse information" about its
renegotiated contracts and declining profits.

It also alleges the company "misrepresented" how much cash it had
available for distribution and the cost of its operations.

The case is seeking C$208.5 million in damages.

Shares in Atlantic Power fell after it announced on Feb. 28 that
it was cutting its dividend to 40 cents per year or 3.333 cents
per month, down from about C$1.15 per year or 9.583 cents per
month.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are shareholders from Nov. 5, 2012
to Feb. 28, 2013, and are represented by the law firms of Siskinds
LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP and the law office of Andrew Morganti.

Atlantic Power is headquartered in Boston, with offices in
Chicago, Toronto, Vancouver, Seattle, San Diego, Calif.


AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholder lawsuit in New York,
according to the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed
against the Company and certain present or former directors of the
Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v.
Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index
No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index
No. 651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon
Products, Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012).  On
April 26, 2012, the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme
Court, New York County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E).  An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on May 18, 2012.  The amended
consolidated complaint asserts a derivative claim against the
individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with indications of interest by Coty, Inc. in
acquiring the Company.  The Company is named as a nominal
defendant on the purported derivative claim, and no relief appears
to be sought against the Company on that claim.  The amended
consolidated complaint also asserts a purported direct claim on
behalf of a class of shareholders against the individual
defendants based on alleged breaches of such fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive
relief.  On June 27, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome
of the matter.  However, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter.  The
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
such reasonably possible loss.

Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in connection with
adverse outcomes in the litigation matters could be material.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avon.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  The
Company commenced operations in 1886 and was incorporated in New
York on January 27, 1916.  The New York-based Company conducts its
business in the highly competitive beauty industry and competes
against other consumer packaged goods and direct-selling companies
to create, manufacture and market beauty and non-beauty-related
products.


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit pending in
New York, according to the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company.  On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel.  The Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006, through and including October 26,
2011.  The amended complaint names the Company and two individual
defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements
and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"),
including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls.  The
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14,
2012.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome
of this matter.  However, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter.  The
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
such reasonably possible loss.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avon.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  The
Company commenced operations in 1886 and was incorporated in New
York on January 27, 1916.  The New York-based Company conducts its
business in the highly competitive beauty industry and competes
against other consumer packaged goods and direct-selling companies
to create, manufacture and market beauty and non-beauty-related
products.


BRASKEM SA: Expects Ruling in Union's 2005 Class Suits by 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A., disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, that class actions filed by the
Union of Workers in the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries in
Triunfo (State of Rio Grande do Sul), in the second quarter of
2005, claiming the payment of overtime amounting to R$23 million,
are with the Superior Labor Court in Brazil.  Management expects
them to be judged by 2014.

"The chances of loss are deemed as possible.  In this group of
actions, in addition to those classified as having a possible
chance of loss, there are others amounting to R$693 million that
were classified as having a remote chance of loss," the Company
said.

The Company also said two of these actions were awarded a final
and unappealable decision in favor of the Company.  There are
judicial deposits related to these claims.

Brazil-based Braskem S.A., is the largest producer of
thermoplastic resins in the Americas, based on annual production
capacity of its 29 plants in Brazil, five plants in the United
States and two plants in Germany as of December 31, 2012.  It is
the only producer of ethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene in
Brazil.


BRASKEM SA: Union's 2010 Actions in Fact-Finding & Appeals Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A., disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, that class actions filed by the
Union of Workers in the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries in
Triunfo (State of Rio Grande do Sul) in the third quarter of 2010
claiming the payment of overtime referring to work breaks and
integration into base salary of the remunerated weekly day-off
amounting to R$287 million, are in the fact finding and appeals
phase and they are expected to be granted a final and unappealable
decision in the last quarter of 2014.

The Company said all of these lawsuits were assessed as possible
losses and the Management of the Company does not expect to
disburse any amounts upon their closure.  No judicial deposit or
other form of security was provided for these claims.

Brazil-based Braskem S.A., is the largest producer of
thermoplastic resins in the Americas, based on annual production
capacity of its 29 plants in Brazil, five plants in the United
States and two plants in Germany as of December 31, 2012.  It is
the only producer of ethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene in
Brazil.


BRAVO BRIO: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 2012, Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. was named as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging certain violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as certain Iowa wage and
hours laws.  The Company has answered the complaint and denied the
allegations.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these allegations and intends to continue to vigorously defend
against them, including challenging the plaintiffs' efforts to
certify a class.  Due to the preliminary nature of this matter,
the Company cannot currently estimate with any degree of certainty
the amount or range of potential loss relating to such action, if
any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 5, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 30, 2012.

Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.bbrg.com/-- owns
and operates two distinct Italian restaurant brands, BRAVO! Cucina
Italiana and BRIO Tuscan Grille.  The Company is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.


DOWNTOWN LA MOTORS: Technicians Get Favorable Ruling in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that automotive technicians who are paid on a "piece-rate" basis
for fixing cars are separately entitled to minimum wages when
waiting for cars to come in for repair or performing other duties,
the Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.

The March 6 decision by Div. Two upholds a ruling in favor of 108
technicians who worked for Downtown LA Motors Mercedes Benz
between April 2002 and June 2008.  Justice Victoria Chavez's
opinion was certified on April 2 for publication.

DTLA, Chavez explained, used a compensation system in which each
task performed by a technician was assigned a specified number of
"flag hours," corresponding to the amount of time the company
believed was necessary to perform the task.  Technicians were then
compensated at the rate of between $17 and $32 per flag hour,
regardless of the amount of time actually spent.

The company also tracked all time spent at the worksite, whether
the technician was working on repairs or not, and technicians who
did not work enough flag hours during a two-week period to earn
the minimum wage were bumped up to that amount.

The plaintiffs presented evidence that they were required to
remain at the job site during their regular eight-hour shifts,
even if there were no cars to repair, in case customers came in.
Those not working on repairs were given other tasks -- for which
they were not credited with flag hours -- such as cleaning work
stations, obtaining parts, attending meetings, picking up and
returning cars, reviewing service bulletins, and participating in
online training.

Following a bench trial, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary H.
Strobel ruled that under California law, the technicians had to be
paid for the time they were working at non-repair tasks or
otherwise required to be at the site.  Based on "credible" expert
testimony, the judge found that class members had worked an
average of 1.85 hours per day without compensation, and that the
average amount of lost compensation per worker per day was $27.76.

Based on those amounts, the judge awarded more than $550,000 in
compensation, more than $1 million in interest, and more than
$230,000 in penalties for willful failure to pay wages at time of
employee termination.

                         IWC Wage Order

Justice Chavez, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the trial
judge correctly applied Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
No. 4, which has the force of law.  The wage order requires that
an employee be paid "not less than the applicable minimum wage for
all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration
is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise," and defines
"hours worked" as "the time during which an employee is subject to
the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee
is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do
so."

The justice rejected the dealer's argument that it complied with
the wage order by paying the minimum-wage differential.  But
Justice Chavez said that contention was inconsistent with the
plain language of the order.

She cited Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314,
which interpreted the same wage order.  The court in that case
ruled in favor of employees who maintained utility poles in rural
or remote areas, to which they were required to travel from a
central meeting location in company trucks, and who were not paid
for time classified by the company as "unproductive," including
time spent traveling to and from job sites, loading or maintaining
vehicles, or attending safety meetings.

While the average wage under this system exceeded the minimum
wage, the Court of Appeal said it violated the requirement that
employees be paid for "all hours worked."  While a different
result might have been reached under federal law, the court said,
California law is more protective of workers and discourages the
use of per-week or per-pay-period "averaging" schemes as a matter
of public policy.

                        Willful Failure

The justice went on to agree with Judge Strobel that the failure
to pay the wages due was willful within the meaning of Labor Code
Sec. 203.  Justice Chavez explained that while the trial judge
found the company to have acted in good faith, and thus not be
liable for liquidated damages, there was substantial evidence of
willfulness, including testimony that the company did not always
comply with its own stated policy of paying the difference when an
employee's piece rate compensation fell below the minimum wage in
a given pay period.

Attorneys on appeal were Arthur F. Silbergeld and Jennifer A.
Awrey of Dickstein Shapiro and Robin Meadow, Cynthia E. Tobisman,
and Alana H. Rotter of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland for the
dealer and Aaron C. Gundzik of Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden,
along with Neal J. Fialkow, for the technicians.

The case is Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, 13 S.O.S. 1662.


EXTRA SPACE: N.D. Cal. Court Narrows Claims in "Martinez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted, in part, a motion to dismiss
claims in the lawsuit captioned TERESA ANN MARTINEZ, on behalf of
herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXTRA
SPACE STORAGE, INC.; EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and Does 1
through 100 inclusive, Defendants, No. C 13-00319 WHA, (N.D.
Cal.).

In December 2012, Teresa Ann Martinez filed a putative class
action in California state court against a storage facility for
allegedly auctioning off belongings illegally.  The Defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
auction violated several provisions of California's Self-Service
Storage Facility Act, California Business and Professions Code
Section 21700 et seq., and alleges a claim for conversion; two
California claims under the Unfair Competition Act, California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and under
Interference with Statutory Rights, California Civil Code Section
52.1; and one federal RICO claim, 18 U.S.C. 1962.

The Defendants moved to dismiss two of the Plaintiff's claims in
the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6).  The Defendants assert that the federal RICO claim
should be dismissed because the complaint fails to sufficiently
allege conversion, causation, and the improper use of funds and
that the class allegations to the Section 52.1 claim should be
dismissed because the statute does not permit class actions.

"Because the complaint has established causation sufficient at the
pleading stage, defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim is
denied," ruled Judge Alsup. "To the extent that the complaint
alleges a claim under Section 1962(a), it has failed to allege
essential elements, and it is dismissed," he said.

According to Judge Alsup, since the complaint does not plausibly
allege the required element of "threats, intimidation, or
coercion," the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Section
52.1, and it is dismissed. "Because this order dismisses the
Section 52.1 claim, this order does not reach whether the claim
could support a class action," he added.

The Court said the Plaintiff may move to file an amended complaint
to cure the deficiencies by April 15, 2013.  The Plaintiff is
directed to include with her motion a copy of the proposed
pleading and a memorandum detailing what has been added, deleted,
and changed.  The memorandum will explain how the deficiencies
have been cured. The motion will be heard on a normal 35-day
track.

A copy of the District Court's April 4, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/X0aZc9from Leagle.com.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: RESPA-Violation Suit vs. Units Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2012, Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Flagstar Bank
and Flagstar Reinsurance Company, were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of
Section 8 provisions of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA").  Section 8 of RESPA generally prohibits anyone from
accepting any fee or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding that business related to a real estate settlement
service involving a mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.
Section 8 of RESPA also prohibits anyone from accepting any
portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for
the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection
with a mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.
The lawsuit specifically alleges that the Bank and Flagstar
Reinsurance Company violated Section 8 of RESPA through a captive
reinsurance arrangement, involving allegedly illegal payments for
the referral of private mortgage insurance business from private
mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company, and Flagstar
Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an unlawful split of
private mortgage insurance premiums.  The case is in an early
stage.  The Company says the Bank intends to vigorously defend
against the allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 5, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.flagstar.com/-- is a Troy,
Michigan-based savings and loan holding company founded in 1993.
The Company's business is primarily conducted through its
principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a federally chartered stock
savings bank.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Settles ERISA Violation Suit for $3 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. settled for $3 million in January 2013 a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's
March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court alleging
that it violated its fiduciary duty pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to employees who
participated in the Company's 401(k) plan ("Plan") by continuing
to offer Company stock as an investment option after investment in
the stock allegedly ceased to be prudent.  On January 25, 2013,
the Company agreed to settle the case for $3.0 million.  The
settlement was expected to be finalized on March 31, 2013.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.flagstar.com/-- is a Troy,
Michigan-based savings and loan holding company founded in 1993.
The Company's business is primarily conducted through its
principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a federally chartered stock
savings bank.


FORD MOTOR: Merchant Law Group Launches Sudden Acceleration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP on April 3 launched Canada-wide class
action litigation seeking millions in financial compensation and
safety repairs for Ford vehicle owners.  This class action affects
30 popular Ford vehicle models, from various manufacturing years,
a list of which is available at:

     https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/ford_accel.php

The litigation launched on April 3 is the first Ford Sudden
Acceleration Class Action in Canada.  Ford Sudden Acceleration
Class Actions are similarly being pursued in the United States.
Class action lawsuits regarding this matter have been launched in
various American states.  Further details of US litigation is
available at http://is.gd/dgUumQ

In December 2012, Toyota Motor Company announced a class action
settlement worth $1.1 billion to settle US lawsuits involving
Toyota sudden acceleration issues.

"Reports of unintended accelerations in Ford vehicles increased
significantly in 2002, when Ford began installing their electronic
throttle control system in a broad range of its vehicle lines.
Electronic throttle control system equipped vehicles are sometimes
referred to as "throttle-by-wire" or "drive-by-wire" because the
electronic throttle control system has no mechanical linkage
between the accelerator pedal and the throttle plate in the
engine. Sudden or runaway acceleration occurs when the throttle
opens contrary to the driver's intentions.  Consequently, most
automobiles provide an electronic or mechanical fail-safe to allow
the driver to bring the vehicle safely under control when faced
with sudden acceleration.  Ford has failed to provide such a fail-
safe on any of the affected Ford vehicles equipped with the
electronic throttle control system.  These vehicles share a common
design defect in that they lack adequate fail-safe systems,
including a reliable Brake Over Accelerator ("BOA") system (also
sometimes referred to as a Brake Override System) that would allow
a driver to end sudden unintended acceleration by depressing the
brake." stated Tony Merchant, Q.C., regarding the Canadian Ford
Sudden Acceleration Class Action litigation being handled by his
law firm.

"Ford vehicle owners who have contacted our law firm are
rightfully concerned about acceleration safety issues and lower
resale values for their Ford vehicles."

Merchant Law Group LLP is a Canadian class action firm.  It has
offices in 12 cities across Canada, from Montreal to Victoria.

For more information on the Ford Sudden Acceleration Class Action,
please visit:

   https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/ford_accel.php


HALCON ENERGY: Contract Breach Suit Remanded to Mercer County Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur J. Schwab of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania remanded to the Court of Common
Pleas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, the lawsuit captioned JEFFRY
S. VODENICHAR, DAVID M. KING, JR., LEIGH V. KING, JOSEPH B. DAVIS
and LAUREN E. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HALCON ENERGY PROPERTIES, INC.,
CO-EXPRISE, INC., and MORASCYZK & POLOCHAK, Defendants, No.
13cv0360, (W.D. Pa.).

The case involves alleged breaches of contracts over land rights,
specifically, gas and oil leases, and all of the land at issue is
located exclusively within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Counsel for Plaintiffs has maintained that all of the putative
class action Plaintiffs are residents of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. There is also no dispute that two of the three
Defendants are also citizens of Pennsylvania.

Against this backdrop, Judge Schwab granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Remand in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(B).

A copy of the District Court's April 4, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/yWC2zufrom Leagle.com.


HARVEST NATURAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on April 4 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc. between May 7, 2010 and March 19, 2013, inclusive,
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers,
alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].

The case name is styled Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, et al.
A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

During the Class Period, HNR issued materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that
rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related
to the Company's financial performance, business prospects, and
financial condition.  As a result of these materially false and
misleading statements, the price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  As the truth of
the Company's materially false and misleading statements entered
the market, the Company's stock plummeted.

The Complaint alleges that statements made by defendants are false
and misleading because defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company incorrectly capitalized certain lease maintenance costs
and certain internal selling, general and administrative costs;
(2) the Company improperly presented certain cash flow items and
caused certain long-lived assets to be impaired; (3) the Company
was unable to sell its interests in Petrodelta S.A. to PT
Pertamina (Persero); (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

As a result of the market's assimilation of the news disclosed in
the Company's March 19, 2013 press release, the Company's shares
declined $1.79 per share or more than 32%, to close at $3.70 per
share.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the Complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of HNR common stock.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased said common stock, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased HNR common stock during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by May 21,
2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Giti Baghban, Esq., or David Weinstein), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to HNR.


HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS: Special Master Needed in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
Highmark on April 1 told a federal judge that there is value in a
proposed class action settlement that the plaintiffs no longer
want, setting up another round in a three-year-old court battle
over insurance premiums and healthcare costs.

U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti said that the question of
whether a proposed settlement between plaintiffs including Royal
Mile Co., and defendant Highmark, is too complicated for anyone
but a court-appointed "special master" who should probably be a
healthcare economist with statistics skills.

"I think this settlement is fraught with problems in terms of
valuation," Judge Conti told the 20 legal professionals assembled
before her.  "This question of value has to go to the special
master."

Royal Mile and other plaintiffs sued UPMC and Highmark in 2010,
saying they colluded to jack up rates.  Last year Royal Mile and
Highmark agreed that the insurer would pay up to $4.5 million to
cover the plaintiffs' legal costs, provide information they could
use against UPMC and take two measures to improve healthcare
competition and lower costs to ratepayers.

The settlement agreement is imperiled, however, by a disagreement
on whether Highmark's decision to reintroduce its lower-cost
Community Blue product, and its pledge to keep that product in
place for at least two years, brings sufficient value to the deal.

The plaintiffs have said the pledge is not enough and want to
withdraw the settlement, while Highmark wants the settlement to
move forward.

"How do I know [Community Blue] wouldn't be in effect for two
years anyway?" Judge Conti asked.  She said the special master
could evaluate not only Highmark's claim that Community Blue saves
the region's ratepayers $30 million over two years, but the
likelihood that the product would be in existence for two years
even without the settlement and the extent to which it benefits
the lawsuit's class members, versus the public at large.

Judge Conti gave the two sides until April 8 to suggest a special
master.  A hearing including testimony on the valuation issue
would follow.

The plaintiffs' attorneys have said they could show that UPMC
inflicted nine-figure damages on the region's ratepayers.


HOME DEPOT: Recalls 11,300 CE Tech Riser Cable Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 11,300 CE Tech 1,000 ft. Riser Cables.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The riser cable does not meet fire resistance standards for riser
cable, posing a fire hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 1,000 ft. CE Tech riser cable sold in boxes
of 1,000 ft. lengths.  It is intended to run between floors of a
building as data cable.  This type of cable must self-extinguish
in a fire.  The cable is gray and marked (UL) E316395.  The
cable's box is blue and black and is marked CE Tech 1,000 ft.
riser cable, Cat 6 23-4.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/xRyy21

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot stores nationwide from January 2013
through February 2013 for about $100.

Consumers should remove the recalled cable and return it to Home
Depot for a full refund.  Home Depot may be reached at (800) 394-
7519 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday or online at http://www.homedepot.com/and click on Product
Recalls for more information.


HONDA FINANCE: Illinois Judge Tosses TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that an
Illinois federal judge tossed a proposed Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action against Honda Finance Corp. and First
Credit Services Inc., ruling that the plaintiff, a felon, was not
a good class representative and the class was too broadly defined.

Plaintiff Kofi Jamison alleged his sister was indebted to Honda
and failed to pay the monthly installments on her loan, so Honda
referred the collection of her account to FCS, which ran a "skip-
trace" on her, yielding Jamison's cellphone number.


HSBC FINANCE: Securities Suit vs. Predecessor Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against a predecessor of HSBC
Finance Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's
March 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International Inc., the predecessor of the Company, and certain
former officers were named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill.
No. 02 C5893), filed August 19, 2002.  The complaint asserted
claims under Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all
persons who acquired and disposed of Household International
common stock between July 30, 1999, and October 11, 2002.  The
claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made
false and misleading statements of material fact relating to
Household's Consumer Lending operations, including collections,
sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the
2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting
practices evidenced by the restatement.  A jury trial concluded in
April 2009, which was decided partly in favor of the plaintiffs.
Following post-trial briefing, the District Court ruled that
various legal challenges to the verdict, including as to loss
causation and other matters, would not be considered until after a
second phase of the proceedings addressing issues of reliance and
the submission of claims by class members had been completed.  The
District Court ruled in November 2010 that claim forms should be
mailed to class members, and to ascertain which class members may
have claims for damages arising from reliance on the misleading
statements found by the jury.  The District Court also set out a
method for calculating damages for class members who filed claims.
As previously reported, lead plaintiffs, in court filings in March
2010, estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between $2.4
billion to $3.2 billion to class members', before pre-judgment
interest.

In December 2011, the report of the Court-appointed claims
administrator to the District Court stated that the total number
of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the
aggregate amount of these claims was approximately $2.23 billion.
Defendants filed legal challenges asserting that the presumption
of reliance was defeated as to the class and raising various
objections with respect to compliance with the claims form
requirements as to certain claims.

In September 2012, the District Court rejected defendants'
arguments that the presumption of reliance generally had been
defeated either as to the class or as to particular institutional
claimants.  In addition, the District Court has made various
rulings with respect to the validity of specific categories of
claims, and held certain categories of claims valid, certain
categories of claims invalid, and directed further proceedings
before a court-appointed Special Master to address objections
regarding certain other claim submission issues.  In light of
those rulings and through various agreements of the parties,
currently there is approximately $1.37 billion in claims as to
which there remain no unresolved objections relating to the claims
form submissions.  In addition, approximately $800 million in
claims remain to be addressed before the Special Master with
respect to various claims form objections, with a small portion of
those potentially subject to further trial proceedings.
Therefore, based upon proceedings to date, the current range of a
possible final judgment, prior to imposition of prejudgment
interest (if any), is between approximately $1.37 billion and
$2.17 billion.  With the imposition of prejudgment interest
calculated through December 31, 2012, the high-end of a possible
final judgment is approximately $2.7 billion.  The District Court
may wait for a resolution of all disputes as to all claims before
entering final judgment, or the District Court may enter a partial
judgment on fewer than all claims pending resolution of disputes
as to the remaining claims.  Post-verdict legal challenges remain
to be addressed by the District Court.

The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of this matter
is uncertain.  When a final judgment, partial or otherwise, is
entered by the District Court, the parties have 30 days in which
to appeal the verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Despite the just verdict and the various rulings of the District
Court, the Company continues to believe that it has meritorious
grounds for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case and
intend to appeal the District Court's final judgment, partial or
otherwise.

Upon final judgment, partial or otherwise, the Company will be
required to provide security for the judgment in order to suspend
execution of the judgment while the appeal is ongoing by either
depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account or posting
an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including any pre-
judgment interest awarded).  Given the complexity and
uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages,
including the outcome of any appeals, there is a wide range of
possible damages.  The Company believes it has meritorious grounds
for appeal on matters of both liability and damages, and will
argue on appeal that damages should be zero or a relatively
insignificant amount.  If the Appeals Court rejects or only
partially accepts the Company's arguments, the amount of damages,
based upon the claims submitted and the potential application of
pre-judgment interest, may lie in a range from a relatively
insignificant amount to somewhere in the region of $2.7 billion
(or higher should plaintiffs' successfully cross-appeal certain
issues related to the validity of specific claims) and, therefore,
it is reasonably possible that future expenses related to this
matter could be up to or exceed $2.7 billion.  The Company
continues to maintain a reserve for this matter in an amount that
represents management's current estimate of probable losses.

HSBC Finance Corporation -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Mettawa, Illinois.  HSBC
Finance, which traces its origin to 1878, operated as a consumer
finance company under the name Household Finance Corporation for
most of its history.  The Company's principal business is to act
as a holding company for its subsidiaries.


HSBC FINANCE: Initiates Refund Program to Borrowers in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation disclosed in its March 4, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2012, that in January 2013, it
initiated a refund program to borrowers in New York, who may have
contractual claims.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard
insurance policy on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails
to maintain their own policy.  The cost of the lender-placed
insurance is then passed on to the borrower.  Industry practices
with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened
regulatory scrutiny.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important
issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in
2012.  In October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and
insurers, including the Company's affiliate, HSBC Insurance (USA)
Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial
Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to lender-placed insurance
activities dating back to September 2005.  The Company has and
will continue to provide documentation and information to the
NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.

Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions
related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC
U.S. entities, including actions against one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage
Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); and Still et
al. v. Beneficial Financial I Inc. et al. (Cal. Super. Ct. Case
No. KC062390).  These actions relate primarily to industry-wide
regulatory concerns, and include allegations regarding the
relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the
various entities that place the insurance, the value and cost of
the insurance that is placed, back-dating policies to the date the
borrower allowed it to lapse, self-dealing and insufficient
disclosure.

A recent routine state examination of the Company's mortgage
servicing practices concluded that borrowers were overcharged for
lender-placed hazard insurance coverage based on the terms of the
underlying mortgages during the period from July 2008 through
April 2012, and required the Company to refund excess premiums
charged to impacted borrowers in that state.  In the first quarter
of 2012, the Company recorded an accrual reflecting its estimate
of premiums that will be refunded to the impacted borrowers as
well as borrowers in other states who may have similar contractual
claims.  In December 2012, the Company entered into an agreement
with the NYDFS to refund premiums to borrowers in the State of New
York who may have contractual claims and, in January 2013, the
Company initiated a refund program to borrowers who may have
similar contractual claims.

HSBC Finance Corporation -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Mettawa, Illinois.  HSBC
Finance, which traces its origin to 1878, operated as a consumer
finance company under the name Household Finance Corporation for
most of its history.  The Company's principal business is to act
as a holding company for its subsidiaries.


HSBC FINANCE: Parties in TCPA Violations Suit in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuits alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are currently engaged in
discovery, according to HSBC Finance Corporation's March 4, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Between May 2012 and January 2013, five substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against various HSBC U.S.
entities, including actions against the Company or one or more of
the Company's subsidiaries: Davis, Jr. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
Case No. 11-bk-04423-RNO; 5:12-ap-0019 (Bankr. M.D. Pa.); Lehner
v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 12-cv-01118-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fl.);
Mills & Wilkes v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services,
Inc., HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. HSBC Auto Finance, Inc. & HSBC
Consumer Lending (USA), Inc., Case No.: 12-cv-04010-MEJ (N.D.
Cal.); McDonald v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 37-2012-00058369-
CU-MC-NC; and Comstock v. HSBC Bank U.S.A, N.A., Case No. 12-cv-
0001-CAB-JMA (S.D. Cal.).  A number of individual actions have
also been filed.  The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the
HSBC defendants contacted them, or the members of the class they
seek to represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded
voice, without their express consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. ("TCPA").
The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and
willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory damages of
$500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations).  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery and the Company is
investigating the allegations.

HSBC Finance Corporation -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Mettawa, Illinois.  HSBC
Finance, which traces its origin to 1878, operated as a consumer
finance company under the name Household Finance Corporation for
most of its history.  The Company's principal business is to act
as a holding company for its subsidiaries.


HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in MDL 1720
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits consolidated in In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
MDL 1720, according to the Company's March 4, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America
Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), and HSBC Holdings plc
("HSBC"), as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions
filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos
Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D. Conn. No. 05-
CV-01007 (WWE)): National Association of Convenience Stores, et
al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG));
Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American Booksellers Ass'n v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).  Numerous
other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC
entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Incorporated and other banks.  These actions
principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by
the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York.
The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL
1720").  A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on April 24, 2006, and a second consolidated amended
complaint was filed on
January 29, 2009.  On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated,
Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Finance
Corporation, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing
Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined
costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Finance
Corporation and the Company's affiliates, may incur, jointly
and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global
settlement of one or all of these actions.  The Sharing Agreements
also cover any other potential or future actions that are
transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the
District Court.  In July 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc.
and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants, entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the class
litigations consolidated into MDL 1720.  The putative class
plaintiffs filed a class settlement agreement with the District
Court on October 19, 2012, and the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the class settlement on
November 27, 2012.  The class settlement is subject to final
approval by the District Court.  Pursuant to the class settlement
agreement and the Sharing Agreements, the Company has deposited
its portion of the class settlement amount into an escrow account
for payment in the event the class settlement is approved.  On
October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs became effective.  Pursuant to the Sharing
Agreements, the Company has deposited its portion of the
settlement amount into an escrow account which had no impact to
net income (loss) as the Company increased its litigation reserves
to an amount equal to its estimated portion of the settlement of
this matter in the fourth quarter of 2011.

HSBC Finance Corporation -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Mettawa, Illinois.  HSBC
Finance, which traces its origin to 1878, operated as a consumer
finance company under the name Household Finance Corporation for
most of its history.  The Company's principal business is to act
as a holding company for its subsidiaries.


HSBC FINANCE: Litigations Over Debt Cancellation Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Litigations challenging marketing practices relating to debt
cancellation or suspension products remain pending, according to
HSBC Finance Corporation's March 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012.

Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. ("HSBC Bank Nevada") and HSBC
Card Services Inc.: Rizera et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al.
(D.N.J. No. 10-CV-03375); Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 10-CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC
Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (W.D. Wash. No. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (D. Md. No. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (N.D. III. No. 11-CV-00548);
McKinney v. HSBC Card Services et al. (S.D. III. No.
10-CV-00786); Chastain v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (South Carolina
Court of Common Pleas, 13th Circuit) (filed as a counterclaim to a
pending collections action); Colton et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A. et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 11-CV-03742).  These actions
principally allege that cardholders were enrolled in debt
cancellation or suspension products and challenge various
marketing or administrative practices relating to those products.
The plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust
enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection and
deceptive acts and practices statutes.  The Mitchell action was
withdrawn by the plaintiff in March 2011.  In July 2011, the
parties in Rizera, Esslinger, McAlister, Samuels, McKinney and
Colton executed a memorandum of settlement and subsequently
submitted the formal settlement on a consolidated basis for
approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in the Esslinger matter.  In February
2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The plaintiff in Chastain appealed the District
Court's preliminary approval order.  The appellate court has not
yet ruled on that appeal.

On October 1, 2012, the District Court held a hearing for final
approval of the settlement in the Esslinger matter.  Several
objectors to the settlement appeared at the hearing, including
representatives for the Attorneys General in West Virginia, Hawaii
and Mississippi, where they asserted that claims brought in those
Attorneys General's lawsuits should not be covered by the release
in the Esslinger matter.  In November 2012, the District Court
entered a final approval order confirming the settlement.  In its
accompanying memorandum, the District Court noted that claims
belonging solely to the states are not impacted by the settlement,
but that claims brought by the Attorneys General seeking recovery
for class members are precluded by the Esslinger settlement.
Chastain and two other class members filed notices of appeal of
the final approval order.  The appeal is pending.

                 Attorney Generals' Class Suits

In October 2011, the Attorney General for the State of West
Virginia filed a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Mason County, West Virginia, captioned State of West Virginia ex
rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al.
(No. 11-C-93-N), alleging similar claims in connection with the
marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services,
including debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers
in West Virginia.  In September 2012, the Attorney General filed
an amended complaint adding the Company's affiliate, HSBC Bank
USA, N.A, as a defendant.  In addition to damages, the Attorney
General is seeking civil money penalties and injunctive relief.
The action was initially removed to Federal court.  The Attorney
General's motion to remand to State court was granted and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in March 2012.
The motion to dismiss was denied and discovery in ongoing.  In
late 2011, the Company received an information request regarding
the same products from another state's Attorney General, although
no action has yet been filed in that state.

In April 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii filed
lawsuits against seven major credit card companies, including
certain of the Company's subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit for the State of Hawaii, alleging that credit card
customers were improperly and deceptively enrolled in various
ancillary services, including payment protection plans and without
regard to potential eligibility for benefits.  In an action
captioned State of Hawaii ex rel David Louie, Attorney General v.
HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc., et al. (No.
12-1-0983-04), the Attorney General alleges claims for unfair and
deceptive marketing practices, consumer fraud against elders and
unjust enrichment.  The relief sought includes an injunction
against deceptive and unfair practices, restitution and
disgorgement of profits, and civil monetary penalties.  The action
was removed to Federal court in May 2012.  In June 2012, the
Attorney General filed a motion to remand, which was subsequently
denied.  The Attorney General then withdrew it pending motion to
consolidate the actions and filed a motion to certify the denial
of its remand motion for interlocutory appeal.  That motion is
still pending.

In June 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi
filed complaints against six credit card companies, including the
Company's subsidiaries HSBC Bank Nevada and HSBC Card Services
Inc. and the Company's affiliate HSBC Bank USA, N.A., in an action
captioned Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi,
ex. rel.  The State of Mississippi v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC
Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the Attorney General
alleges claims that are substantially the same as those made in
the West Virginia and Hawaii Attorney General actions consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims in connection with the
defendants' marketing, selling and administering of ancillary
services, including payment protection plans.  The relief sought
includes injunction against deceptive and unfair practices,
disgorgement of profits, and civil money penalties.  In August
2012, this action was removed to Federal court and the Attorney
General filed a motion to remand.  Briefing on the Attorney
General's motion to remand has been consolidated for purposes and
the motion remains pending.

HSBC Finance Corporation -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Mettawa, Illinois.  HSBC
Finance, which traces its origin to 1878, operated as a consumer
finance company under the name Household Finance Corporation for
most of its history.  The Company's principal business is to act
as a holding company for its subsidiaries.


HSBC USA: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement resolving
an antitrust multidistrict litigation in New York, 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.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four
class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.
(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y.
No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American
Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No.
05-CV-5391 (JG)).  Numerous other complaints containing similar
allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across
the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other
banks.  These actions principally allege that the imposition of a
no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supra-
competitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws.
These lawsuits have been consolidated and transferred to the
Eastern District of New York.  The consolidated case is: In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720").

A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 24, 2006, and a second consolidated amended complaint was
filed on January 29, 2009.  On February 7, 2011, MasterCard
Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank
USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing
Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined
costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA
and the Company's affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally,
in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or
all of these actions.  The Sharing Agreements also cover any other
potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the
District Court.  In July 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc.
and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants, entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the class
litigations consolidated into MDL 1720.  The putative class
plaintiffs filed a class settlement agreement with the District
Court on October 19, 2012, and the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the class settlement on
November 27, 2012.  The class settlement is subject to final
approval by the District Court.  Pursuant to the class settlement
agreement and the Sharing Agreements, the Company has deposited
its portion of the class settlement amount into an escrow account
for payment in the event the class settlement is approved.  On
October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs became effective.  Pursuant to the Sharing
Agreements, the Company has deposited its portion of the
settlement amount into an escrow account, which had no impact on
net income (loss) as the Company increased its litigation reserves
to an amount equal to the Company's estimated portion of the
settlement of this matter in the fourth quarter of 2011.  In
connection with the execution of the MOU, the Company increased
its litigation reserves by an immaterial amount in anticipation of
a related short-term reduction in interchange fees.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Appeal in "Levin" Overdraft Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc.'s appeal in the litigation brought by Ofra Levin, et
al., relating to overdraft fees 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.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft
fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit
accounts in high-to-low order.  The Levin plaintiffs dismissed the
Federal court action after the case was transferred to the multi-
district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the
case in New York state court on March 1, 2011.  The action,
captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 650562/11), asserts claims for breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York
deceptive acts and practices statute.  In May 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The court denied in part
and granted in part the motion to dismiss, granting the Levin
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint with regard to their
claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.

In October 2012, the Company appealed the court's order, and that
appeal is still pending.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Still Defends Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance, 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.

Between June 2011 and November 2012, several putative class
actions related to lender-placed insurance were filed against
various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against the Company
and its subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage
Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); West et al. v.
HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina Court of
Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687); and Hall et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (S.D. Fla. 1:12-CV-22700-FAM).  These
actions relate primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, and
include allegations regarding the relationships and potential
conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the
insurance, the value and cost of the insurance that is placed,
back-dating policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse,
self-dealing and insufficient disclosure.

Private Mortgage Insurance Matters Private Mortgage Insurance
("PMI") is insurance required to be obtained by home purchasers
who provide a down payment less than a certain percentage
threshold of the purchase price, typically 20 percent.  The
insurance generally protects the lender against a default on the
loan.  In January 2013, a putative class action related to PMI was
filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries captioned Ba v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A. et al (E.D. Pa. No. 2:13-cv-00072PD).  This action relates to
industry-wide concerns and includes allegations regarding the
relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the
various entities that place the insurance, self-dealing,
insufficient disclosures and improper fees.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Expects Oral Argument in Madoff-Related Suits in 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 oral argument in the class action lawsuits
arising from Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme is expected in early
2013.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested for running a
Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the liquidation of
his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff
Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment
adviser.  Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial,
administration and similar services to a number of funds
incorporated outside the United States whose assets were invested
with Madoff Securities.  The Plaintiffs (including funds, funds
investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced
Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a
multitude of jurisdictions.  Various HSBC companies have been
named as defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Ireland,
Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.  Certain lawsuits (which
include U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC
defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and
breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)),
dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff
in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including,
subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading
amendment, HSBC Bank USA).  In December 2011, the District Court
lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims
against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary
approval of the settlement.  In light of the District Court's
decisions, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement.  The
Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate.  The
Plaintiffs in all three actions filed notices of appeal to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the
actions are captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds
Securities Litigation (2nd Cir, Nos. 12-156, 12-184, 12-162).
Briefing in that appeal was completed in September 2012; oral
argument is expected in early 2013.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


INTEL CORP: Says Comcast Ruling Supports Antitrust Suit Argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that Intel Corp.
argued on March 29 that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Comcast
Corp. decision supported its contention that consumers suing the
chipmaker for allegedly squeezing out a rival microprocessor
manufacturer didn't have strong enough evidence to win class
certification.

Just two days after the justices narrowly sided with Comcast in a
monopolization class action, Intel told the Delaware court
overseeing its own antitrust dispute that the ruling added new
weight to its argument.


JAPANESE AUTO MAKERS: Defective Air Bag Inflaters Prompt Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoshio Takahashi of The Wall Street Journal reports that Toyota
Motor Corp. and three other Japanese car makers will recall more
than 3 million vehicles world-wide to replace defective air bag
inflaters made by Japanese auto-parts supplier Takata Corp.

Toyota, Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and Mazda Motor Corp.
said they would recall a total of about 3.39 million vehicles in
North America, Europe, Japan and other markets.  They said the
improperly manufactured air bag inflaters may catch fire.

The four companies said there had been no injuries or accidents
reported due to the faulty part.

While it is unusual for multiple car makers to undertake large-
scale recalls for the same defect at the same time, the more than
12 models involved reflects an industry trend toward common parts.

"This recall is an example of one of the downsides of using 'super
suppliers' for important vehicle components," said Michelle Krebs,
an analyst at auto information Web site Edmunds.com.

Toyota will recall 1.73 million Corolla, Matrix, Sequoia, and
Tundra vehicles, as well as Lexus SC430 and other models built
between November 2000 and March 2004, a company spokesman said.

Honda said it would recall 1.13 million Civic, CR-V, Odyssey and
other models.  Nissan said it would replace the faulty air bags in
about 480,000 Maxima, X-Trail and other models, while Mazda said
it would recall 45,463 vehicles.

About 48,000 General Motors Co. model year 2003 vehicles also are
affected.  The Pontiac Vibe was designed and engineered by Toyota
and built at a joint manufacturing plant in California.  GM said
its dealers will service the Pontiac models once the parts are
available.  A Takata spokesman said the air bag is installed in
non-Japanese-made cars, although he declined to elaborate.


MANCHESTER TANK: Recalls 7,500 Propane Cylinders Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Manchester Tank & Equipment Company, of Elkhart, Indiana,
announced a voluntary recall of about 7,500 100-pound Propane
Cylinders.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Fuel can leak from the thread connection between the cylinder and
valve, posing a fire hazard if exposed to an ignition source.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled Manchester Tank & Equipment Company cylinders
included in the recall were manufactured January through September
2012.  The date of manufacture is printed on the collar by month
and year, so "6 * 12" represents June 2012.  The name Manchester
and the water capacity "WC238#" are also pressed into the collar.
These gray 100-pound DOT propane cylinders measure about 41" high
and about 15" in diameter.  Manchester 100-pound propane cylinders
with a green dot on the hand-wheel on the top of the cylinder are
not included in the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/MeBnFI

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold nationwide at propane dealers and distributors,
hardware stores including Ace, True Value and Tractor Supply,
welding equipment supply stores, farm and home stores, and
equipment rental outlets from January 2012 through March 2013 for
between $140 and $170.

Consumers should stop using the propane cylinders and call
Manchester or go to the firm's Web site for instructions on having
their gas cylinder inspected by a qualified propane equipment
dealer and repaired if needed.  A list of propane equipment
distributors, RV distributors and retail distributors are listed
on the firm's Web site at http://www.mantank.com/on the
"Distributors" page.  Manchester Tank & Equipment Co. may be
reached at (800) 640-6327 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.mantank.com/and click on the "News" page for more
information.


MELA SCIENCES: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit
against MELA Sciences, Inc., was dismissed in December 2012,
according to the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM.  Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010, and the other on January
20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy Steigman,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin Slove and
Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11 cv-00429-JFM.  The three
securities class actions were consolidated into one action on
February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 7:10-Cv-08774-JFM ("securities class action").
The securities class action plaintiffs asserted violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among other things,
that defendants made misstatements and omissions regarding the
Company's product, MelaFind(R), and its prospects for U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval, on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from February 13, 2009, through November 16, 2010, and
sought unspecified damages.

On May 2, 2011, the securities class action plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint, alleging similar claims to their
prior complaints.  On July 29, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  The
Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on
September 23, 2011.  In light of the Company's receipt of the
Approvable Letter from the FDA for the MelaFind(R) PMA Application
on September 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the consolidated amended complaint on
November 18, 2011, which defendants opposed.  On September 19,
2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint.

On September 28, 2012, the court reinstated and granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On October 22, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
Judgments denying Lead Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
consolidated amended complaint and granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On December 7, 2012,
the plaintiffs withdrew the appeal with prejudice and without
costs pursuant to a stipulation between the parties.

On December 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit granted the stipulation and dismissed the appeal.

New York-based MELA Sciences, Inc. -- http://www.melasciences.com/
-- is a medical device company focused on the commercialization of
its flagship product, MelaFind(R), and the further design and
development of MelaFind(R) and the Company's technology.
MelaFind(R) is a non-invasive, point-of-care instrument to aid in
the detection of melanoma.


MEZENTCO INC: Law Firms Mull Class Suit Over Chemotherapy Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Mulholland, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that the
discovery that some hospitals in Ontario and New Brunswick were
unknowingly using watered-down chemotherapy drugs has not only led
to worry and anger among patients, it's also prompted plans for
lawsuits.

Three firms have announced they hope to launch class-action
lawsuits on behalf of the families of the more than 1,100 patients
affected.  They plan to sue the company that prepared the IV bags
containing the diluted medications.

Four hospitals in Ontario and one in New Brunswick purchased
batches of IV bags containing cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine
that were mistakenly diluted by as much as 20%.  Patients received
the diluted drugs for more than a year before a lab technician in
Peterborough, Ont. spotted the problem.

The discovery that some hospitals in Ontario and New Brunswick
were unknowingly using watered-down chemotherapy drugs has not
only led to worry and anger among patients, it's also prompted
plans for lawsuits.

Ontario announced on April 4 it will appoint an independent third
party to investigate the error.  Premier Kathleen Wynne said the
probe will aim to figure out what happened and to understand
whether "something systematic" needs to be addressed to prevent it
from happening again.

Lawyer Matt Baer, whose firm Siskinds LLP is among the three that
are planning lawsuits, says notices of action were filed on
April 3 and that phones at his office have been "ringing off the
hook" ever since.

"People are very concerned, they're confused, they're upset.  They
don't know the impacts on their health," he told CTV's Canada AM
from London, Ont. on April 4.

Mr. Baer says the aim of the lawsuit would be to compensate
patients for any damage they might have experienced to their
health, as well as for emotional distress.

In a statement on April 3, Siskinds LLP said: "We believe that
through this class action, the defendant will be required to
account for the problem with these drugs, explain to Canadian
patients how this problem occurred, and compensate those affected.

The firms are preparing to sue Mezentco Inc., which operates
Marchese Health Care.  According to the hospitals, Marchese made a
critical error when mixing medication into the IV bags.

They allege that the company didn't account for the fact that the
IV bags they used came overfilled and so when the medication was
added to the bags, the dosage was incorrect.

On April 3, Marchese defended itself, issuing a public statement
to say they were confident they met all of their contract
requirements, including concentrations for the IV products.

"These concerns have arisen as a result of a difference between
the manner of administration used in some hospitals that was not
aligned with how the standardized preparation had been
contractually specified," the company explained.

On April 4, the company said they are cooperating fully with the
government-led investigation.

"Given the early stage of the review it is not appropriate to
comment further," they said.

Mr. Baer believes a lawsuit can help uncover exactly what went
wrong.

"We're in early stages and these are simply allegations at this
point.  Obviously, something went wrong somewhere, and we have to
go through the steps to determine the proper accountability," he
said.

If the lawsuit can uncover concrete evidence of how the errors
directly affected the health of patients, they will seek monetary
compensation.  But he says patients could also be compensated for
the stress they've endured worrying about whether they were fully
treated.

"It's difficult enough going through cancer and chemotherapy and
then to have a bombshell like this dropped on you, it's very
emotional and this is a very fragile population," he said.

Tracey Bridgen would agree.  She was recently treated for non-
Hodgkins lymphoma at Windsor Regional Hospital and was one of the
patients who was informed this week that she received the diluted
medications.

She says her head began spinning when she got the news and is now
feeling stressed and angry.

"This is unacceptable," Mr. Bridgen told CTV Windsor.  "And it's
affecting people in ways that you don't even know unless you are a
cancer patient."

The lawsuit will take time, Mr. Baer says.  The first step is a
certification hearing, in which the firms will try to convince the
court that the lawsuit has merit and is appropriate as a class
action.

If the suit is approved, every patient who was affected by the
error would automatically be included.

Meanwhile, the Ontario College of Pharmacists was at Marchese
Hospital Solutions on April 3 to investigate, Ontario Health
Minister Deb Matthews said.  As well, Cancer Care Ontario and the
affected hospitals are conducting their own investigations.

Cancer Care Ontario has said the dilution problem will affect each
patient differently, as the dilution ranged between three and 20%,
from bag to bag.  As well, each patient had a different care plan,
relying on different combinations of drugs.

According to CTV Windsor News, Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Siskinds
LLP announced they intend to commence a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of all cancer patients who received incorrect doses of
chemotherapy medications, cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine,
between Jan. 1, 2012 and March 28, 2013.

Four Ontario hospitals are informing 990 patients that they
received lower than intended doses of cyclophosphamide and
gemcitabine, according to a statement from Cancer Care Ontario.
It impacted 665 patients in London, 290 in Windsor, 34 in Oshawa
and one in Peterborough.  Patients at one New Brunswick hospital
were also affected.

The law firms say the defendant in the lawsuit will be the
pharmaceutical company which prepared and supplied the drugs.

The Ministry of Health has confirmed the pharmaceutical company
Marchese Hospital Solutions supplies the drugs to these locations.

Marchese Hospital Solutions issued a statement on April 3, saying:
"We are confident that we fully met all of the contract
requirements including both volume and concentrations for these
solutions.  However, we share responsibility to ensure that
patients and their families are not given any reason for concern
about their treatment.  We take this responsibility very
seriously."

Windsor Regional Hospital CEO David Musyj told CTV News on
April 3, he wasn't aware of the lawsuit.

"If people need to address their issues in that way I don't blame
them whatsoever,"says Mr. Musyj.  "If I was a family member or a
patient impacted by this, I would get past the point of
information gathering and get angry, because I can tell you as a
part of our emotion, part of it is anger as a staff as well."

The affected patients received a letter explaining that they
received incorrect doses of their chemotherapy medication.
Hospital officials say 17 of the 290 Windsor patients have passed
away.

Hospitals have stopped getting the drugs from the supplier and
like Windsor Regional, officials at London Health Sciences Centre
have taken matters into their own hands.

"Instead of having a company actually do the compounding or the
preparation like that, we've got the source materials from drug
manufacturers, and we've brought all that production into our own
hospital pharmacies," says Neil Johnson, vice president of the
Southwest Cancer Program, LHSC.

Cancer Care Ontario officials say they were advised on March 27
that there was an error in the doses of cyclophosphamide which
they received over the past year.

In the compounded process, the pharmaceutical company did not
adjust for the overfill present in IV bags and as a result the
products are of a lower concentration than labelled, according to
Mr. Musyj.  This resulted in a three to 13% lower dosage being
administered to the 990 patients, starting in February 2012.

"What you're supposed to do, because these bags are overfilled, is
you're supposed to extract all of the saline solution from them or
start with an empty bag," says Mr. Musyj.

"This is a shocking revelation for cancer patients affected by
this error," said lead lawyer Harvey Strosberg in a media release.
"As Canadians, we count on world class health care, and we expect
and deserve long-term cancer treatment to be done seamlessly and
expertly. Based on our discussions, both patients and caregivers
are stunned by this news."

According to The Canadian Press, Dr. Eshwar Kumar, the CEO of the
New Brunswick Cancer Network, says he doubts the diluted drug
would have much impact on patients, but each case will have to be
examined individually.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Network released a statement on April 3
recommending patients and health care providers closely monitor
chemotherapy dosages to ensure the safety of patients.

"Patient safety should remain the focus of the system," said Cathy
Ammendolea, board chair, Canadian Breast Cancer Network.  "It is
vital that patients are informed of the impact of the diluted
medications on their treatment outcomes and that adequate measures
are taken to ensure that these errors don't occur again."

Meanwhile, Cancer Care Ontario, an oversight body that works with
hospitals and regional cancer programs, says each hospital has
secured new supplies of the medications and patients' treatment
cycles will not be interrupted, according to The Canadian Press.

"We know that for example their doses are reduced by a small
amount just in the course of delivery of chemotherapy which does
happen fairly frequently that it is unlikely that there is any
significant impact," said Dr. Carol Sawka of Cancer Care Ontario.
"But each case is unique, and it is very difficult to provide a
blanket response as to the implications of this on patients."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jr. Seau Suit Merged With Concussion Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kase, writing for Lawyers.com, reports that lawsuits filed
against the National Football League by the family of deceased
star Junior Seau have been merged with an existing class action
suits covering thousands of former players.

Mr. Seau spent 20 years as one of the most feared defenders in the
league, most famously with the San Diego Charges and later with
the Miami Dolphins and New England Patriots.

His parents filed one suit and his four children another after the
43-year-old committed suicide last year.  The plaintiffs argue
that the thousands of hits the linebacker sustained over his
career caused him to develop chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a
brain plaque associated with repeated head trauma, which
contributed to mental illness that led him to take his life.

The league should have done more to warn players of the dangers of
head injuries and less to promote the violent nature of the sport,
the suit claims.  Now his family is joining over 4,000 former
players and their families who are making similar claims against
the NFL in dozens of class actions that have been consolidated in
Philadelphia.  A hearing will be held this week to determine if
the lawsuits can be heard in court, or if they should be thrown
out and moved to arbitration under the league's collective
bargaining agreement.

While the NFL has acknowledged the dangerous long-term effects of
concussions, it claims that the accusations leveled by the players
"stands in contrast to the league's actions to better protect
players and advance the science and medical understanding of the
management and treatment of concussions."

However, a number of high-profile stars have committed suicide in
recent years after suffering from apparent brain damage, including
Dave Duerson of the Chicago Bears, Ray Easterling of the Atlanta
Falcons and Andre Waters of the Philadelphia Eagles.  A number of
others have complained of depression, cognitive difficulties and
early-onset dementia.

The league has implemented a number of rule changes over the past
few seasons to try to limit head-to-head collisions and protect
players, but thousands of retirees are saying the changes come too
little, too late.


NEW YORK, NY: NYPD Denies Stop-and-Frisk Quota Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Windsor Genova, writing for AHN, reports that an official of the
New York Police Department denied that police officers have a
quota for stop-and-frisks in the Brooklyn precinct during the
April 2 trial of a class-action lawsuit against the tactic.

Deputy Inspector Steven Mauriello made the denial before a federal
Manhattan court despite the presentation by plaintiffs of a
recording of Lt. Jean Delafuente's order for cops to make at least
two stop-and-frisks per day in the crime-ridden 81st precinct.

Suspended cop Adrian Schoolcraft recorded the lieutenant's order
made in 2008 and is using it as an evidence in his $50 million
suit against the city.  He accused the NYPD of forcing him to be
hospitalized in a mental ward for exposing the stop-and-frisk
quota.

The plaintiffs are seeking more oversight of the NYPD in the use
of the tactic to prevent racial profiling as blacks and Latinos
appeared being targeted for stop-and-frisks, according to Darius
Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the plaintiffs'
lead attorney.

NYPD Pedro Serrano's separate recording in 2012 of Deputy
Inspector Christopher McCormack reprimanding him for stopping only
two people in the 40th precinct in February of that year is
another evidence backing the complainants' allegations.

Serrano and another officer, Adhyl Polanco, also accused superiors
of retaliating against those who failed to meet quotas for street
stops.


NORTHEAST HEALTH: Capital Region Nurses Get Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gavin, writing for Times Union, reports that more than
3,200 registered nurses in the Capital Region have started to
receive checks as their part of a multimillion-dollar settlement
of a class-action lawsuit that accused local hospitals of
conspiring to depress their wages.

Payouts to the 3,277 nurses -- which average $1,730 -- were mailed
to the recipients beginning on March 29, according to SEIU 1199,
the state's largest health care union, which supported the
plaintiffs and did research for the lawsuit.

"We feel that this is a major victory for the nurses as well as
for health care," said Lisa Brown, SEIU 1199's executive vice
president for the Hudson Valley area, which covers the Capital
Region.  "Because if people feel valued in their work, they stay
committed.  We think this will improve quality of care.  We think
that the nurses will feel more valued by their employer."

The lawsuit alleged that Albany Medical Center Hospital, Ellis
Hospital in Schenectady, St. Peter's Hospital in Albany, Albany
Memorial Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital in Amsterdam and Samaritan
Hospital in Troy shared detailed wage information and agreed not
to compete for nurses over a four-year period, violating federal
antitrust law.

Hourly rates paid by the hospitals allegedly differed by no more
than $1.

Two Albany area nurses, Wendy Fleischman and Cindy Cullen, filed
the suit in 2006.  The period in which the hospitals allegedly
conspired was from June 20, 2002, through June 20, 2006.

Court papers described the alleged actions by the medical
facilities as a "wage-fixing conspiracy" that happened during a
nationwide nursing shortage and jeopardized patient care.

Daniel Small, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney for the
plaintiffs, previously estimated that each nurse lost about $6,000
annually in compensation.

In March 2009, Troy-based Northeast Health, which runs Samaritan
Hospital and Albany Memorial Hospital and is now part of St.
Peter's Health Partners, agreed to settle in March 2009 for $1.25
million.  St. Peter's Hospital settled in June 2009 for nearly
$2.7 million.  Earlier that year, Seton Health, which runs St.
Mary's Hospital in Troy and is now also part of St. Peter's Health
Partners, settled for $744,000.  The settlement with Ellis
Hospital was reached in 2011.

"These settlement payouts are a victory for registered nurses and
for patients," Norma Amsterdam, a registered nurse and an
executive vice president at 1199SEIU, said in a statement. "The
checks will help compensate."

The union said similar lawsuits were filed in Detroit, Chicago,
San Antonio and Memphis.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Miller" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit styled Debra Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, et al., according to the Company's March 5, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 7, 2012, Orbitz was named as a defendant in a
putative consumer class action pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The complaint
alleges the defendants, including Orbitz, violated certain federal
and state laws relating to their marketing practices.  On December
21, 2012, Orbitz filed a motion to dismiss.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defends Consumer Antitrust MDL in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. is defending itself against a consumer
antitrust multidistrict litigation pending in Texas, according to
the Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain hotel chains and the major online
travel companies, including Orbitz.  The complaint alleges that
the hotel chains and several major online travel companies,
including Orbitz, have violated the antitrust and consumer
protection laws by entering into agreements in which online travel
companies agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms
at prices that are less than what the hotel chain offers on its
own Web site.  Following the filing of the initial complaint on
August 20, 2012, several dozen additional putative consumer class
action complaints have been filed in federal courts across the
country.  On December 11, 2012, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating these cases
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defends Suits Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. continues to defend itself against various
lawsuits relating to hotel occupancy taxes, according to the
Company's March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. and certain of its current and former
subsidiaries and affiliates, including Orbitz, Inc., Orbitz, LLC,
Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), Travelport Inc.
(f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.), and
Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), are parties to
various cases brought by consumers and municipalities and other
governmental entities in the U.S. involving hotel occupancy taxes
and the Company's merchant hotel business model.  Some of the
cases are purported class actions, and most of the cases were
brought simultaneously against other online travel companies,
including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.  The cases allege,
among other things, that the Company violated the jurisdictions'
hotel occupancy tax ordinances, as well as related sales and use
taxes.  While not identical in their allegations, the cases
generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or
state occupancy tax ordinances, failure to pay sales or use taxes,
and in some cases, violations of consumer protection ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust,
demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment, and civil conspiracy.  The plaintiffs seek
relief in a variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment,
full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive
trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement,
restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and
where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the
action as a class action.  Adverse rulings in these cases could
require the Company to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and
possibly pay interest, penalties, and fines.  The proliferation of
additional cases could result in substantial additional defense
costs.  The table reflects the hotel tax cases in which the
Company is currently a defendant.

                       Date            Court Where
City or County        Litigation      Litigation
Filing Litigation     Instituted      is Pending
-----------------     ----------      ----------
City of Chicago, IL   Nov. 1, 2005    Circuit Court of Cook
                                       County, Illinois

City of Rome, GA**    Nov. 18, 2005   U.S. Court of Appeals for
                                       the Eleventh Circuit

City of Atlanta, GA   Mar. 29, 2006   Superior Court, Fulton
                                       County, Georgia

City of San Antonio,  May 8, 2006     U.S. District Court for
Texas**                               the Western Dist. of Texas

Wake County, N.C.     Nov., 2006      Court of Appeals of North
                                       Carolina

Dare County, N.C.     Jan. 26, 2007   Court of Appeals for North
                                       Carolina

                                       Case was coordinated with
                                       the Wake County case on
                                       April 4, 2007

Buncombe County, N.C. Feb. 1, 2007    Court of Appeals for North
                                       Carolina

                                       Case was coordinated with
                                       the Wake County case on
                                       April 4, 2007

City of Gallup,       July 6, 2007    U.S. District Court for
N.M.**                                the District of New Mexico

Mecklenburg County,   Jan. 10, 2008   Court of Appeals for North
North Carolina                        Carolina

                                       Case was coordinated with
                                       the Wake County case on
                                       February 19, 2008

Jefferson County,     Sept. 25, 2009  Circuit Court of Jefferson
Arkansas**                            County, Arkansas

Leon County, Florida  Nov. 5, 2009    Florida First District
(state tax)                           Court of Appeals

Leon County, Florida  Dec. 14, 2009   Florida First District
(local tax)                           Court of Appeals

County of Lawrence,   Jan. 14, 2010   Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania*                         Pennsylvania

Baltimore County, MA  May 3, 2010     U.S. District Court for
                                       the District of Maryland

Hamilton County, Ohio Aug. 23, 2010   U.S. District Court for
                                       the Northern District of
                                       Ohio

Montana Dep't         Nov. 8, 2010    Montana First Judicial
of Revenue                            District, Louis and Clark
                                       County

Montgomery County,    Dec. 21, 2010   U.S. District Court for
Maryland                              the District of Maryland

McAllister et al.     Feb. 22, 2011   Circuit Court of Saline
(Consumer Action)                     County, Arkansas

Washington, D.C.      April 22, 2011  Superior Court for the
                                       District of Columbia

Volusia County, FL    May 11, 2011    Circuit Court for the
                                       Seventh Judicial Circuit
                                       in and for Volusia County,
                                       Florida

Breckenridge, CO*     July 25, 2011   District Court for Summit
                                       County, Colorado

Nassau County, NY*    Sept. 26, 2011  Supreme Court of New York,
                                       Nassau County

State of Mississippi  Jan. 6, 2012    Chancery Court of the
                                       First Judicial District of
                                       Hinds County, Mississippi

County of Kalamazoo,  Aug. 28, 2012   Ninth Judicial Circuit for
Michigan                              the County of Kalamazoo

City of Fargo, ND     Feb. 27, 2013   District Court for the
                                       County of Cass, ND

   * Indicates purported class action filed on behalf of named
     City or County and other (unnamed) cities, counties,
     governments or other taxing authorities with similar tax
     ordinances.

  ** Indicates court certified class action on behalf of named
     City or County and other (unnamed) cities, counties,
     governments or other taxing authorities with similar tax
     ordinances.

Procedurally, the cases listed are at various stages.  In seven of
these cases, the Company has obtained summary judgment, and the
municipalities are in the process of appealing those decisions
(Rome, Georgia; Wake County, North Carolina; Dare County, North
Carolina; Buncombe County, North Carolina; Mecklenberg County,
North Carolina; Leon County, Florida (state tax), and Leon County,
Florida (local tax).  The Company has motions for summary judgment
pending in an additional four of these cases (Chicago, Illinois;
City of Atlanta; Georgia; City of Gallup, New Mexico; and Hamilton
County, Ohio).  In the San Antonio case, in November 2011, the
online travel companies filed a motion in which they requested
that the court amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law
to provide that online travel companies' services are not subject
to local hotel occupancy tax, as held by the Texas Court of
Appeals in City of Houston v. Hotels.com.  The trial court
recently denied that motion.  In the Washington D.C. case, the
trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District on
the issue of liability, and the court is now in the process of
determining damages.  The remaining cases on the list are pending
at the trial court level.

These legal proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes the
Company previously reported were concluded since October 1, 2012:

   * Baltimore City, Maryland: On October 9, 2012, the parties
     executed a settlement agreement. On October 16, 2012, the
     parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice,
     ending the case.

   * Houston, Texas: On October 26, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court
     denied the City's Petition for Review.

   * Santa Monica, California: On November 1, 2012, the Court of
     Appeal of the State of California affirmed the judgment of
     the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California which
     found the on-line travel companies (OTCs) not subject to
     Santa Monica's ordinance.  On January 23, 2013, the
     California Supreme Court denied review, thereby ending the
     case.

   * Kent County, Michigan: On December 4, 2012, the Circuit
     Court for the Count of Kent, Michigan granted the County's
     motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

   * Branson, Missouri: On January 23, 2013, the Missouri Court
     of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Branson's complaint.
     On February 19, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied Branson's
     petition for rehearing.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: To Appeal Order in Suit vs. Online Travel Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its March 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that it intends to appeal a decision
after judgment is entered in the class action lawsuit against
online travel companies.

In July 2011, related to the City of San Antonio hotel occupancy
tax case, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas issued its findings of fact and conclusions of
law in which it held the defendant online travel companies,
including Orbitz, liable for hotel occupancy taxes on markup,
fees, and breakage revenue, and also imposed penalties and
interest.  The online travel companies asked the court to modify
its findings of fact and conclusions of law to conform to the
Texas Court of Appeals' decision in the City of Houston case,
which determined that the online travel companies are not liable
under an ordinance that is similar to the ones at issue in the San
Antonio class action.  On January 23, 2013, the Court denied the
online travel companies' motion.  The Company expects the Court to
enter judgment shortly.  The Company expects the amount of
judgment to be approximately $3.5 million against Orbitz.  Orbitz
intends to appeal the decision after the Court enters judgment.
Because the Company does not believe a loss is probable given the
numerous issues that exist on appeal, the Company has not accrued
any liability related to this case.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


PFIZER INC: Insurers Improperly Denied Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and Janelle Lawrence, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Pfizer Inc. may have to face lawsuits by insurers
alleging the company improperly marketed the epilepsy drug
Neurontin after an appeals court found the cases were improperly
denied class-action status.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston on April 3 found a lower-court
judge erred in refusing to allow so-called "third-party payers,"
such as health insurers and union funds, to combine their
Neurontin racketeering claims.  The appeals court also upheld a
$142.1 million damage award to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.
over Pfizer's Neurontin marketing.

"We reject the argument" that Kaiser's lawyers didn't produce
sufficient evidence to uphold the jury verdict, the court said in
a 64-page ruling.

The decision allows hundreds of U.S. health plans to revive
potential class-action racketeering claims that the world's
largest drugmaker engaged in illegal off-label marketing of
Neurontin for bipolar disorders, said Carl Tobias, who teaches
product-liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia.
"They are telling the judge to take another look at the class-
certification issue," Mr. Tobias said.

Pfizer officials said they are considering appealing the April 3
rulings in the Neurontin cases.

"Pfizer continues to believe there was no basis in fact or law"
for the Kaiser verdict, Chris Loder, a spokesman for the New York-
based company, said in an e-mailed statement.  The drugmaker also
contends the trial judge correctly ruled the insurers shouldn't be
able to proceed as a class with their claims.

Pfizer and its Warner-Lambert unit are accused in the insurers'
lawsuits of promoting the drug for uses that weren't approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to boost profit.  The
insurers contend they were duped into covering Neurontin
prescriptions for unapproved ailments, such as bipolar disorder.

Pfizer's Warner-Lambert subsidiary pleaded guilty in 2004 to
criminal charges filed by the U.S. Justice Department and paid
$430 million to resolve allegations over the company's Neurontin
marketing. Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert for $120 billion in
2000.

Neurontin's sales rose from 15% off-label in 1994 to 94% in 2002,
the government said in court filings.  The drug's sales hit $2.3
billion in 2002.
Combine Claims

The insurers sought to combine claims that Pfizer engaged in
racketeering through its Neurontin marketing.  U.S. District Judge
Patti Saris denied that request, ruling the plans couldn't show
Pfizer's actions caused their damages and therefore weren't
entitled to have a class-action case certified, according to court
filings.

The appeals court panel, which included retired Supreme Court
Judge David Souter, concluded the plans presented sufficient
evidence to show Pfizer's illegal Neurontin marketing caused the
insurers' damages.  The panel sent the case back to Judge Saris to
revive the racketeering claims and to reexamine whether the cases
should be certified as a class action.

"We express no view as to whether the plaintiffs can, on remand,
meet the requirements" for having their cases combined, the court
said.

In the Kaiser case, a federal court jury in Boston concluded in
2010 Pfizer violated federal racketeering laws through its
Neurontin marketing and it awarded $47.4 million in damages.

Judge Saris later tripled the award under a provision of the
racketeering statutes.  The claims were brought by the Kaiser
Foundation plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.  Both are units
of Oakland, California-based insurer Kaiser Permanente.

The cases are In RE Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, 11-1806, 11-1904 and 11-2096, United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit (Boston).


POLK COUNTY, FL: Clerk of Court Faces Class Action Over Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Geary, writing for The Ledger, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against the Polk County Clerk of Court and
the Sheriff's Office, claiming more than $200,000 in service fees
have been unlawfully collected since 2000.

The lawsuit states people paying cash to bail inmates out of jail
were charged an $8.50 service fee for approving the bail and
administrative costs.

"Our argument is there was no statutory authority for that fee,"
said James "Rusty" Franklin, a Bartow lawyer who is handling the
lawsuit along with Lakeland lawyer Robert Brush.  "We claim anyone
who put that money up is entitled to that money back."

The lawsuit was filed March 21 on behalf of Bobby Vinton, a
Wahneta man who posted a cash bail for another person in November
2011, according to Franklin.

However, the lawsuit is seeking class-action certification and
claims more than 30,000 people might have been impacted by the
service fee.  It asks for accounting records to determine the
exact amount of money alleged to have been unlawfully collected.

No legal responses have been filed yet from the Polk County
Sheriff's Office or Clerk of Court.

Scott Wilder, a spokesman with the sheriff's office, said the law
enforcement agency collects bail amounts for the Clerk of Court,
and then turns over this money to the Clerk of Court.

"We don't receive any portion back," he said.

Stacy Butterfield, Polk County's clerk of court, said she could
not comment on the pending litigation.


POLYONE CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corporation has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to resolve merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's March 5, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company said that the Current Report on Form 8-K is being
filed in connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
regarding the settlement of certain litigation related to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 23, 2012, by and
among PolyOne Corporation ("PolyOne"), 2012 RedHawk, Inc. ("Merger
Sub"), 2012 RedHawk, LLC (n/k/a PolyOne Designed Structures and
Solutions LLC) ("Merger LLC"), and Spartech Corporation
("Spartech"), as it may be amended from time to time (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which Spartech will be merged with and
into Merger Sub (the "merger"), with Spartech continuing as the
surviving corporation in the merger (the "Surviving Corporation")
and a wholly owned subsidiary of PolyOne, which is expected to be
immediately followed by a merger of the Surviving Corporation with
and into Merger LLC (the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC
continuing as the surviving entity in the Subsequent Merger.

As contemplated by the MOU, PolyOne and Spartech are providing
certain additional disclosures to those contained in the
definitive proxy statement/prospectus mailed on February 11, 2013,
to the Spartech stockholders of record as of the close of business
on February 1, 2013 (the "proxy statement/prospectus").  The
Spartech board of directors previously fixed February 1, 2013, as
the record date for the purpose of determining the stockholders
who are entitled to receive notice of, and to vote at (in person
or by proxy), a special meeting.

Spartech's board of directors unanimously determined that the
Merger Agreement, the merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement are in the best interests of
Spartech and its stockholders and unanimously approved the Merger
Agreement, the merger and the other transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement.

                Litigation Related to the Merger

As previously disclosed on page 85 of the proxy
statement/prospectus under the heading "Litigation Related to the
Merger," five purported class action lawsuits have been filed by
alleged Spartech stockholders.  Two purported class actions have
been filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
against Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger
LLC concerning the proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Merger Sub and Merger LLC.
Those actions, Weinreb v. Spartech, et al. and Warren v. Spartech,
et al., have been consolidated for all purposes as In re Spartech
Corporation Shareholder Litigation (the "Missouri Stockholder
Action").  The Missouri Stockholder Action alleges, among other
things, that the directors of Spartech have breached their
fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by approving the proposed
acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne and by failing to disclose
certain information to stockholders.  The Missouri Stockholder
Action further alleges that PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC
have aided and abetted the directors of Spartech in breaching
their fiduciary duties.  Among other things, the Missouri
Stockholder Action seeks to enjoin the merger.

Two purported class actions were also filed in Delaware Chancery
Court (the "Delaware Stockholder Actions").  One of the Delaware
Stockholder Actions, Gross v. Spartech et al., was filed against
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC.  The
other Delaware Stockholder Action, Pill v. Spartech, et al., was
filed against Spartech and its directors.  The Delaware
Stockholder Actions alleged, among other things, that the
directors of Spartech have breached their fiduciary duties owed to
stockholders by approving the proposed acquisition of Spartech by
PolyOne and by failing to disclose certain information to
stockholders.  Gross v. Spartech, et al. also alleged that
PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC have aided and abetted the
directors of Spartech in breaching their fiduciary duties.  Among
other things, the Delaware Stockholder Actions sought to enjoin
the merger.  After their request to stay the Delaware Stockholder
Actions was denied, plaintiffs in the Delaware Stockholder Actions
filed a Notice and (Proposed) Order of Dismissal on January 31,
2013, which was granted with modifications on February 1, 2013.

A purported class action has also been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC.
Faulkner v. Holt, et al. (the "Missouri District Court Stockholder
Action"), alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Spartech have breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders
by approving the proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne and
by failing to disclose certain information to stockholders.  The
Missouri District Court Stockholder Action further alleges that
PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC have aided and abetted the
directors of Spartech in breaching their fiduciary duties.  The
Missouri District Court Stockholder Action also brings a claim,
individually, against the directors of Spartech under Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.  Among other things, the Missouri District
Court Stockholder Action seeks to enjoin the merger.

PolyOne, Merger Sub, Merger LLC, Spartech, and Spartech's
directors believe the Missouri Stockholder Action, the Delaware
Stockholder Actions, and the Missouri District Court Stockholder
Action and the underlying claims are without merit.

On March 5, 2013, counsel for the parties in each of the lawsuits
entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on the terms of a
settlement of the Missouri Stockholder Action, including the
dismissal with prejudice of the Missouri Stockholder Action and a
release of all claims made therein against all of the defendants.
The MOU also provides for dismissal with prejudice of the Missouri
District Court Stockholder Action.  The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the merger,
and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate
that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses as part of the settlement.  There can be no assurance
that the merger will be consummated, that the parties ultimately
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the court
will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such
stipulation.  If the settlement conditions are not met, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would become void.
The settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that Spartech stockholders are entitled to receive
in the merger.

The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the Missouri
State Action, the Delaware Stockholder Actions, and the Missouri
District Court Stockholder Action or otherwise in relation to the
merger.  The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed
settlement described above solely to avoid the substantial burden,
expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting
the merger.

                          About PolyOne

PolyOne Corporation -- http://www.polyone.com/-- is a provider of
specialized polymer materials, services and solutions.  The
Company is headquartered in Clayton, Missouri.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Did Not Seek Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in its March 5, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that the lead plaintiff did not
seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court
with respect to the dismissal of a consolidated securities
lawsuit.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for the
Company's February 2008 public offering of common stock (the Stock
Offering).  An additional purported securities class action
lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 20, 2009.  By order of the Court dated
March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action.  On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September
8, 2009.  On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to
amend.  The Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
January 27, 2010.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the
results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of the Company's product
candidate fostamatinib (then known as R788).  The plaintiff sought
damages, including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers
in the Stock Offering, an award of their costs and injunctive
and/or equitable relief for purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period between December 13, 2007, and February 9,
2009, including purchasers in the Stock Offering.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on February 16, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the Court
issued an order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend.  On September 22,
2010, plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that it will
not amend its complaint and requested that the Court enter a final
judgment.  On October 28, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed
judgment requesting entry of such judgment in favor of the
defendants.  On November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing
the action.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November
15, 2010, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Circuit
Court), appealing the district court's order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
The plaintiff filed its opening brief on February 23, 2011.  The
Company filed its opposition brief on April 8, 2011.  On May 9,
2011, the plaintiff filed its reply brief.  On February 17, 2012,
the Circuit Court heard oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal.  On
September 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the complaint.  On September 27, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.  On October
25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc.

On November 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit entered judgment in the
Company's favor.  The plaintiff had until January 23, 2013, to
seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court,
but did not do so.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in June 1996, and is based in South San
Francisco, California.  The Company is a clinical-stage drug
development company that discovers and develops novel, small-
molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune
diseases, as well as muscle disorders.


SPARTECH CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spartech Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's March 5, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Spartech said that its Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed
in connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
regarding the settlement of certain litigation related to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 23, 2012, by and
among PolyOne Corporation ("PolyOne"), 2012 RedHawk, Inc. ("Merger
Sub"), 2012 RedHawk, LLC (n/k/a PolyOne Designed Structures and
Solutions LLC) ("Merger LLC"), and Spartech Corporation, as it may
be amended from time to time (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which Spartech will be merged with and into Merger Sub (the
"merger"), with Spartech continuing as the surviving corporation
in the merger (the "Surviving Corporation") and a wholly owned
subsidiary of PolyOne, which is expected to be immediately
followed by a merger of the Surviving Corporation with and into
Merger LLC (the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC continuing
as the surviving entity in the Subsequent Merger.

As contemplated by the MOU, PolyOne and Spartech are providing
certain additional disclosures to those contained in the
definitive proxy statement/prospectus mailed on February 11, 2013,
to the Spartech stockholders of record as of the close of business
on February 1, 2013 (the "proxy statement/prospectus") in
connection with the solicitation of proxies for use at a special
meeting of stockholders.  The purpose of the special meeting is to
(i) consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement;
(2) consider and vote on a proposal to approve, on an advisory
(non-binding) basis, the merger-related executive officer
compensation payments that will or may be paid by Spartech to its
named executive officers in connection with the merger; and (3)
approve the adjournment of the special meeting, if necessary to
solicit additional proxies if there are not sufficient votes to
adopt the Merger Agreement at the time of the special meeting.
The Spartech board of directors previously fixed February 1, 2013,
as the record date for the purpose of determining the stockholders
who are entitled to receive notice of, and to vote at (in person
or by proxy), the special meeting.

Spartech's board of directors unanimously determined that the
Merger Agreement, the merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement are in the best interests of
Spartech and its stockholders and unanimously approved the Merger
Agreement, the merger and the other transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement.

                Litigation Related to the Merger

Page 85 of the proxy statement/prospectus under the heading
"Litigation Related to the Merger" discloses that five purported
class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged Spartech
stockholders.  Two purported class actions have been filed in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against Spartech, its
directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC concerning the
proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne through its wholly-
owned subsidiaries Merger Sub and Merger LLC.  Those actions,
Weinreb v. Spartech, et al. and Warren v. Spartech, et al., have
been consolidated for all purposes as In re Spartech Corporation
Shareholder Litigation (the "Missouri Stockholder Action").  The
Missouri Stockholder Action alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Spartech have breached their fiduciary duties owed to
stockholders by approving the proposed acquisition of Spartech by
PolyOne and by failing to disclose certain information to
stockholders.  The Missouri Stockholder Action further alleges
that PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC have aided and abetted
the directors of Spartech in breaching their fiduciary duties.
Among other things, the Missouri Stockholder Action seeks to
enjoin the merger.

Two purported class actions were also filed in Delaware Chancery
Court (the "Delaware Stockholder Actions").  One of the Delaware
Stockholder Actions, Gross v. Spartech, et al., was filed against
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC.  The
other Delaware Stockholder Action, Pill v. Spartech, et al., was
filed against Spartech and its directors.  The Delaware
Stockholder Actions alleged, among other things, that the
directors of Spartech have breached their fiduciary duties owed to
stockholders by approving the proposed acquisition of Spartech by
PolyOne and by failing to disclose certain information to
stockholders.  Gross v. Spartech, et al. also alleged that
PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC have aided and abetted the
directors of Spartech in breaching their fiduciary duties.  Among
other things, the Delaware Stockholder Actions sought to enjoin
the merger. After their request to stay the Delaware Stockholder
Actions was denied, plaintiffs in the Delaware Stockholder Actions
filed a Notice and (Proposed) Order of Dismissal on January 31,
2013, which was granted with modifications on February 1, 2013.

A purported class action has also been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC.
Faulkner v. Holt, et al. (the "Missouri District Court Stockholder
Action"), alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Spartech have breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders
by approving the proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne and
by failing to disclose certain information to stockholders.  The
Missouri District Court Stockholder Action further alleges that
PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC have aided and abetted the
directors of Spartech in breaching their fiduciary duties.  The
Missouri District Court Stockholder Action also brings a claim,
individually, against the directors of Spartech under Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.  Among other things, the Missouri District
Court Stockholder Action seeks to enjoin the merger.

PolyOne, Merger Sub, Merger LLC, Spartech, and Spartech's
directors believe the Missouri Stockholder Action, the Delaware
Stockholder Actions, and the Missouri District Court Stockholder
Action and the underlying claims are without merit.

On March 5, 2013, counsel for the parties in each of the above-
described lawsuits entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement of the Missouri Stockholder Action,
including the dismissal with prejudice of the Missouri Stockholder
Action and a release of all claims made therein against all of the
defendants.  The MOU also provides for dismissal with prejudice of
the Missouri District Court Stockholder Action.  The proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the
merger, and final approval of the proposed settlement by the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  There can
be no assurance that the merger will be consummated, that the
parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
enter into such stipulation.  If the settlement conditions are not
met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would
become void.  The settlement will not affect the amount of the
merger consideration that Spartech stockholders are entitled to
receive in the merger.

The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the Missouri
State Action, the Delaware Stockholder Actions, and the Missouri
District Court Stockholder Action or otherwise in relation to the
merger.  The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed
settlement solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, including
the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger.

                         About Spartech

Headquartered in Clayton, Missouri, Spartech Corporation --
http://www.spartech.com/-- is a producer of plastic products
including polymeric compounds, concentrates, custom extruded sheet
and rollstock products and packaging solutions for a wide spectrum
of customers.  Spartech's three business segments, which operate
in the United States, Mexico, Canada, and France, annually process
approximately one billion pounds of plastic resins, specialty
plastic alloys, and color and specialty compounds.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Plane Safety Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Davis, writing for Law360, reports that Southwest Airlines
Co. on April 3 asked a Texas federal judge to dismiss a putative
class action alleging it had systemic problems maintaining its
fleet of planes to federal safety standards, claiming the original
plaintiffs lack standing.

The consolidated class action alleges Southwest breached an
express warranty to its passengers under state law when it flew
planes in violation of Federal Aviation Administration's
Airworthiness Directive 2004-18-06, known as the Chem-Mill AD.
But Southwest says the class plaintiffs don't have standing to
bring the suit.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Responds to Class Action Solicitations
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul L. Perito, Esquire, Chairman, President and COO of Star
Scientific, Inc. on April 4 issued the following statement on
behalf of Star Scientific and Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

"Numerous plaintiffs' class action law firms have been issuing
press releases and announcements since January seeking potential
plaintiffs to retain them and sue the Company.  These press
releases and announcements that are appearing on various websites
and in other media are not lawsuits.  They are attempts by
plaintiffs' firms to solicit plaintiffs to form class action
lawsuits."

"As of April 4, two shareholder complaints have been filed against
Star Scientific.  The first complaint, filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 25,
2013, is named Reuter v. Star Scientific, Inc., et al.  A second
complaint, subsequently filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on March 26, 2013, is named
Boravian v. Star Scientific, Inc., et al.  We believe that both of
these complaints are without merit and we will assert numerous
defenses to the claims being made.  We have hired able and
experienced trial counsel who have successfully defended similar
class action cases.  We will vigorously defend these suits, and we
believe that we will ultimately be successful.

"Star Scientific will not be deterred by these distractions, as we
stated.  The Company is proud of its worthy science based
products, as well as the fact that these products are used by
thousands of satisfied, repeat customers.  We stand behind our
scientific research, and that of other credentialed third parties,
which has been conducted on our anatabine compound, as well as the
reporting of the results of that research.  Accordingly, the
Company will continue to focus on sales of its Anatabloc(R)
products, its new Anatabloc(R) facial creme, and the extension of
its product line."


VISA INC: CCB Signs 400th Client in $7.25-Bil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Claims Compensation Bureau, LLC on April 3 disclosed it has signed
its 400th client in the $7.25 billion Visa/MasterCard class action
settlement.  With these clients totaling more than $100 billion in
credit card sales, CCB is expanding its operations to support its
continuing class action claims growth on behalf of institutional
investors, retailers and other clients.

Brad Heffler, CCB's president and founder, said, "CCB's experience
in creating the third-party class action filing industry 17 years
ago, combined with the financial strength, large scale data-
processing capabilities and institutional controls of our publicly
traded parent company, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (PRA),
gives CCB a significant competitive advantage over the many
inexperienced companies recently formed as a result of large cases
such as the Visa/MasterCard settlement."

To help manage CCB's growing class action claims business, Robert
Rey has been appointed senior vice president, operations,
reporting to Mr. Heffler.  For the past year, Mr. Rey has
supported Mr. Heffler's business development efforts from CCB's
parent, PRA, where he served since 2008 as vice president,
strategy.  In addition, Mark Schneider, formerly assistant vice
president, strategy reporting to Mr. Rey, will join CCB as vice
president, operations, continuing to report to Mr. Rey.

"Bob and his team have been an integral part of our approach to
securing new clients as a strategic advisor to CCB," said
Mr. Heffler.  "With his assistance, CCB has signed more than 400
clients in the upcoming $7.25 billion class action settlement
between merchants and the nation's largest credit card issuers.
In his new role with CCB, Bob will continue to apply PRA's
disciplined data-driven approach to the class action claim filing
industry," Mr. Heffler said.

Mr. Rey commented, "CCB's pioneering claim filing process and its
sophisticated platform ensure that its clients recoup the maximum
amount to which they are entitled.  It's imperative that companies
perform due diligence in selecting a class action claims provider
that can successfully monitor and handle the complexities of the
numerous major settlements that occur each year.  Equally
important is to evaluate whether the filing firm has the long-term
financial security to ensure that it can continue to manage claims
during the often lengthy timeline leading up to the distribution
of funds," continued Mr. Rey.

Mr. Rey joined PRA in 2001 as vice president of PRA's contingency
collection operation.  Prior to joining PRA, he worked in
consulting and management positions at various credit issuer banks
managing collections, asset sales and outsourcing.  He attended
Temple University in Philadelphia where he received a Bachelor of
Business Administration degree with honors and a Juris Doctor
degree.

Mr. Schneider was previously assistant vice president of strategy
in PRA's core debt purchasing business, also supporting several of
PRA's subsidiary businesses.  Prior to joining PRA in 2009, he was
a senior manager at Capital One Financial Corporation, where he
held various management and analytical roles within their recovery
department for eight years.  He earned a Bachelor of Business
Administration degree from James Madison University and an MBA
degree from The Fuqua School of Business at Duke University.

                             About CCB

Founded in 1996, CCB -- http://www.claimscompensation.com--
pioneered the industry of filing class action claims on behalf of
institutional investors and corporate clients.  Its securities
clients are some of the largest financial companies in the world
including hedge funds, investment banks, asset management firms
and mutual funds.  Its non-securities clients include Fortune 500
companies in a wide variety of industries.  CCB has filed claims
totaling more than $25 billion for its client base of more than
1,100 companies.  CCB is a subsidiary of Portfolio Recovery
Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRAA).


WELLS FARGO: Loses Bid to Dismiss MedCap Ponzi Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that Wells Fargo NA
failed on April 2 to persuade a California federal court to toss a
consolidated class action claiming it breached its contract with
noteholders by handing out their funds to Medical Capital Holdings
Inc. in MedCap's $1 billion Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge David Carter partly denied the banking giant's
summary judgment bid, ruling he could not grant summary judgment
on Wells Fargo's argument that it did not have the obligation to
notify investors of problems with the accounts until defaults
occurred.


* Canadian Class Action Lawyer Named in Leaked Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
Althia Raj, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that
revelations a well-known Canadian lawyer -- and husband to a
sitting senator -- moved C$1.7-million to offshore accounts while
battling the Canada Revenue Agency are the latest in a long
history of headline-making incidents involving the couple.

Class-action lawyer Tony Merchant, husband of Liberal Senator Pana
Merchant, moved money to tax havens in the South Pacific and
Caribbean, CBC News reports.  The Merchants and their children's
names are found in a huge stash of offshore financial information
leaked to the Washington-based International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists.

Mr. Merchant, whose law practice Merchant Law Group LLP has
offices across the country, is an aggressive and ambitious lawyer
known for pursuing multi-million-dollar class action lawsuits
against corporations such as General Motors over manifold gaskets,
Merck over its arthritis drug Vioxx, the big cell phone providers
over system access fees, and Maple Leaf Foods over tainted meat.
More recently, he has attempted to sue the federal government on
behalf of the half million Canadians who received student loans
and whose personal information was lost when Human Resources and
Skills Development misplaced a hard drive containing sensitive
information.

The Regina lawyer and well-known Liberal, however, is probably
best known for earning millions from the C$1.9-billion native
residential schools settlement.  In one of the largest ever legal
payouts, Mr. Merchant received C$25 million from the federal
government for his work on behalf of residential school survivors.
He could earn up to C$40 million in legal fees, as well as tens of
millions more for sexual and physical claims that are being
handled by a special adjudicator and for which the government will
add 15% in order to cover legal fees, Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development Canada confirmed on April 2.

He was seeking C$50 million for his firm's work but the federal
government refused to pay the tab, throwing the two in a lengthy
legal battle which was still brewing last month.

In an interview with the Star Phoenix in 2001, Mr. Merchant
suggested his firm might gross more than C$100 million off the
residential school awards.  "We thought we would do well
financially and I think we will do well financially," Mr. Merchant
is quoted saying.

Harold Jimmy, a Cree man, complained to the Saskatchewan Law
Society after receiving a solicitation letter from Merchant,
according to the Star Phoenix.  Mr. Jimmy told the newspaper he
was appalled lawyers were making millions handling cases while the
government and the churches had already admitted wrongdoing.

In 2002, the Saskatchewan Law Society found Merchant guilty of
conduct unbecoming a lawyer for sending retainer letters to former
residential schools students asking them to authorize his firm to
pursue claims on their behalf.  The letters, which used language
like "you have nothing to lose" and "if we do not recover
anything, then you'll pay nothing," were found to have been
capable of misleading the recipients.  Mr. Merchant was
reprimanded, fined, and costs were assessed against him.

It wasn't the first or the last time Mr. Merchant found himself
defending his actions in front of the law society.  The 68-year-
old has a lengthy list of complaints against him.  Last year, he
appealed a six-month suspension the Law Society had issued after
it found him guilty of two more counts of conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer.  He was found to have breached two court orders, one of
which required him to pay settlement proceeds to his client.  He's
been found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer five times by
the Saskatchewan Law Society.  In 1986, he was fined C$1,000 for
having willfully interfered in the lawful use of property after he
pleaded guilty to mischief for helping friend and client Colin
Thatcher, in 1983, take his nine-year-old daughter Stephanie from
the home of a family friend the day after Mr. Thatcher's wife
JoAnn Wilson was killed.

In 1989, Mr. Merchant failed to reply to correspondence from the
Law Society and was fined C$500.  In 2006, he was again found to
have sent correspondence reasonably capable of misleading the
recipients.  In that case, Mr. Merchant sent residents of Estevan,
a town that was evacuated after a train derailment, correspondence
that said that if the Merchant Law Group was incapable of
recovering any funds, residents would pay nothing for its
services.  But a retainer agreement included in the correspondence
said the opposite.  He was reprimanded and fined C$5,000.  That
same year, he was also found to have breached another court order
after withdrawing money from his client's trust fund without their
approval.  He was given a two-week suspension.

According to the Globe and Mail, in 2007, the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, awarded one of Mr. Merchant's clients more than
C$300,000 in damages and punitive charges after the judge
determined Merchant Law Group had wrongfully billed them
C$250,000.

Mr. Merchant's Liberal ties in Saskatchewan date back to 1934.
His grandfather, Vincent Smith, and his mother, Sally Merchant,
were both short-term Liberal members of the province's
legislature.

Tony Merchant won a provincial seat in 1975 and represented Regina
Wascana until 1978.  According to Maclean's magazine, Mr. Merchant
ran unsuccessfully for the provincial Liberal leadership in 1976
and tried three times to get a federal seat.  He was an early
supporter of Jean Chretien's leadership ambitions and seems to
suggest he had a hand in who was appointed to the federal bench
during Liberal years.

When Chretien appointed a Merchant family member to the Senate in
December, 2002, the only real surprise was that it was Pana, and
not Tony, who got the nod, Maclean's journalist Jonathon Gatehouse
wrote in 2006.

"There were discussions," Mr. Merchant told Gatehouse, "but it
would have been impossible unless I was prepared to back away from
practice.  And I wasn't ready to do that."

Mr. Merchant is well known for his billing.  He told The Globe
that in 2005, he billed 5,300 hours.  Top performing lawyers
usually bill around 2,000 hours a year.  Mr. Merchant has told
numerous media outlets he usually bills 12-to-15 hours a day,
seven days a week, sleeps only a few hours and eats one meal a day
-- dinner.

Still, he likes to travel.

In an interview with Canadian Lawyer in 2007, Mr. Merchant boasted
that he'd visited 94 countries and likes to work in different
hotel suites around the world.

"I'm happy with what I do.  I travel, I work huge hours, but I do
it in different places.  It's just more interesting. I carry big
briefcases of junk.  It's more interesting to be in a hotel room
and eat in a different place and go out.  In Qatar, I sat at a
pool and dictated for probably seven or eight hours. I work a
little harder in a sun place,"he told the magazine.

"I try to have a suite when I can afford it, so if I wake up, I
can not wake my wife.  If I don't, I wake her.  That was her bad
luck to have married me.  If the lights are on and I'm dictating,
she can put the covers over her head," he says with a laugh.  "She
accepts that, she's a wonderful person."

Pana Merchant, 70, is the first Greek-born woman to serve in the
Senate and the second woman to represent Saskatchewan.  She was a
past fundraising chair of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan.  The
former schoolteacher is well-known for her philanthropic work with
the visual art community.  She was a founding board member of the
Canadian Race Relations Foundation but no one at the organization
was able to comment on her work with them on April 3.  Her three
sons, Evatt, Joshua and Matthew, all practice law with their
father.

The couple has made headlines before.

In 1998, a Tax Court judge criticized Mr. Merchant for
"stonewalling" Revenue Canada auditors who were trying to reassess
his taxes, Maclean's magazine reported.

"When the court ordered him to disclose his financial documents,
he dragged his heels, then submitted an avalanche of disorganized
papers, including a list of 16,000 items with no description or
explanation.  When he pressed the case to the Federal Court of
Appeal, the three-judge panel criticized his "unacceptable
conduct" and disrespect before the court.  Of particular issue
were Merchant's efforts to file a legal memorandum that exceeded
the court's 30-page limit.  After it was twice rejected, he
changed the page margins and filed the same argument in eye-
straining, extra-small type," Mr. Gatehouse wrote.

In 2006, Pana Merchant, then a senator, sued Saskatchewan
Government Insurance for C$1,450 in damages the family dog had
inflicted on their son's car.  Mr. Merchant sued the insurance
corporation after it refused to pay for the damages to the 1999
Oldsmobile Alero, according to the Regina Leader Post.  The
lawsuit also claimed for "punitive and exemplary damages" for bad
faith conduct.


                             *********

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  * * *