CAR_Public/130416.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 74

                             Headlines



APPLE REIT SEVEN: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Suit
APPLE REIT TEN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Judge Dismisses "All-Natural" Class Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Recalls Buckyballs and Buckycubes Magnet Sets
BATTENFELD TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 4,000 Handgun Security Vaults

BP PLC: Atlantic Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigment
BP PLC: Continues to Defend Suits Due to Flaring Event in Texas
BP PLC: Defends Deepwater Horizon-Related Suits & Investigations
BP PLC: Has Paid Amounts Due to Alaska in Suit Over 2006 Oil Leak
BETHLEHEM CONSTRUCTION: Beneficiary Faces Check Encashment Woes

CLEAN HARBORS: Defends Suits Over Fuel Surcharges vs. Unit
CU BANCORP: Got $82,000 Settlement in Suit Over CMO Securities
DISH DBS: Class Action Suit Over Channel Bundling Has Concluded
DUN & BRADSTREET: Obtains Summary Judgment in Contract Breach Suit
EHEALTH ONTARIO: Settles Bonus Class Action for C$6.7 Million

EMI: Munger Tolles Takes Over as Defense Counsel in Class Action
FORMOSA FOOD: Recalls 1,133 Pounds of Pork Jerky Product
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Court Dismisses Claims in Consumer Suit
HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS: Judge Says Specialist Needed to Review Accord
IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending

MANDA PACKING: Recalls 20,166 Pounds of Roast Beef Deli Meat
MEDICAL VISION: Referred to ASIC; Class Action on Hold
MEDTRONIC INC: Sprint Fidelis-Related Suit Remains Pending
MIAMI BEACH, FL: Police Officers File RICO Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Hears Threshold Issue in Concussion MDL

NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces NLRB Complaint Related to "Monjazeb" Suit
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Filed Amended Complaint in March
PALL CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
RICH PRODUCTS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
ROYAL BANK: UK Shareholders Continue to Pursue Securities Suits

SOLTA MEDICAL: Awaits Result of Mediation in TCPA Suit
SOLTA MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California
STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
TORO CO: Lawnmower Purchasers' Suit Remains Pending in Canada
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles One Case in Sudden Acceleration MDL

TRUMPETTE INC: Recalls 33,000 "Aubree's" and "Hearts" Baby Socks
UNITED STATES: ICE Settles Class Action Over Raids for $1 Million
WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Suit in Iowa
WILLIAM CARTER: Recalls 218,000 Infant Clothing With Zippers

* Alliance Claim Funding Expands to Canada
* Class Action Lawyers Prepare as FCC Confirms Radiation Review
* Class Actions Over Accounting Fraud Plunge in 2012
* Judicial Panel Sends Drywall MDL to E.D. Pa. Court


                             *********


APPLE REIT SEVEN: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Seven, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
and other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. putative class action lawsuit
which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Six, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT Six,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT Six, Inc.,
or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates, Inc.
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Seven, Inc. -- http://www.applereitseven.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation formed in May 2005 to invest in income-
producing real estate in the United States.  The Richmond,
Virginia-based Company has elected to be treated as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes.


APPLE REIT TEN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated litigation pending in New York, according
to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Nine, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Ten, Inc. -- http://www.applereitten.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, formed
in August 2010 to invest in hotels and other income-producing real
estate in selected metropolitan areas in the United States.  The
Company has elected to be treated as a real estate investment
trust for federal income tax purposes.


ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Judge Dismisses "All-Natural" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Latif, writing for BevNET.com, reports that AriZona Beverages
can breathe a sigh of relief now that a federal judge has tossed
out a long-running class-action lawsuit claiming that the company
misrepresents its products as "all-natural."  In his ruling, U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg decertified the class of consumers
in the suit and stated that the plaintiffs did not introduce any
evidence to prove their allegations that high fructose corn syrup
(HFCS) and citric acid are artificial ingredients.

The lawsuit was one of several filed in recent years against
beverage companies, ranging from entrepreneurial companies like
Xing Tea marketer New Age Beverage Co. to PepsiCo and the
Coca-Cola Co., Inc. each of which use the terms "natural" or "all-
natural" in marketing and labeling for some of their brands.
Plaintiffs in many of the cases allege that consumers are misled
about the origins of the ingredients in the products.

In the AriZona lawsuit, which was first filed in March 2010, Judge
Seeborg rejected the plaintiffs' claim that "HFCS is not natural
because patents have been issued for the process of producing it"
and "that if HFCS were a naturally occurring substance such as 'a
new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the
wild' it would not be patentable," is rhetoric as opposed to a
valid argument, particularly considering that U.S. patent law is
not permissible as evidence under federal guidelines.

Judge Seeborg also rejected the plaintiffs' allegations that
AriZona is confusing consumers who do not know what "all-natural"
means.  The plaintiffs argued that testimony from co-founder Don
Voltaggio about his decision to drop the phrase "a hundred percent
natural" in AriZona's marketing and begin using the terms "All
Natural Tea," "No Preservatives," "No Artificial Color," and "No
Artificial Flavor" was an admission that the company's labels
confused the public.  The judge stated that the testimony "does
not demonstrate that it is probable that a significant portion of
the consuming public could be confused by the 'all natural'
labeling of defendants' products."

And while AriZona produced a range of evidence to counter the
claims of the lawsuit, including an expert witness to testify that
that HFCS and citric acid are indeed natural as well as letters
from its suppliers indicating that the ingredients are natural,
the judge noted that the plaintiffs failed to present a viable
case and that their attorneys had not sufficiently addressed basic
and mandatory legal standards.

"Defendants have established that they are entitled to summary
judgment by showing that Plaintiffs have not introduced any
evidence showing that HFCS or citric acid are artificial, nor have
they produced any evidence from which damages may be assessed,"
Judge Seeborg said.  "Nor, at this late stage in the litigation,
could plaintiffs obtain such evidence as discovery is closed."

In a rather scathing rebuke, Judge Seeborg called the plaintiffs'
counsel "dilatory" and said that their efforts "did not begin to
approach due diligence."

"Plaintiffs had more than six months after the entry of the
scheduling order to identify an expert, and failed to do so," he
said.  "They then waited for nearly five more months after their
deadline for doing so had passed to file a motion requesting that
expert discovery be extended.

While the ruling is a significant win for AriZona, the result of
the case and, in particular, Judge Seeborg's rationale in
dismissing the lawsuit, could work to the advantage of other
beverage companies defending themselves in similar class-action
lawsuits.  Justin Prochnow -- prochnowjj@gtlaw.com -- an attorney
with Greenberg Traurig LLP, who specializes in labeling and
regulatory issues affecting the beverage industry, noted that the
biggest takeaway from the case was the judge's reasoning that a
processed ingredient does not necessarily mean that it should be
precluded from being called "natural."

"The case gives other companies a good road map for defending
themselves against possible arguments [in other lawsuits],"
Mr. Prochnow said.


BARNES & NOBLE: Recalls Buckyballs and Buckycubes Magnet Sets
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with six retailers, is announcing the voluntary recall of all
Buckyballs and Buckycubes high-powered magnet sets sold by these
companies.  CPSC continues to warn that these products contain
defects in the design, warnings and instructions, which pose a
substantial risk of injury and death to children and teenagers.

These products contain defects in the design, warnings and
instructions, which pose a substantial risk of injury and death to
children and teenagers.

Imported by Maxfield & Oberton LLC, of New York, N.Y., Buckyballs
and Buckycubes consist of sets of numerous, small, high-powered
magnets.  These sets vary in the number of magnets included and
come in a variety of colors.  Individual magnets in the set are
about 5 millimeters in diameter.  Individual magnets in Buckyballs
are spherical and individual magnets in Buckycubes are cube-
shaped.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/h3HkNT

About three million sets of Buckyballs and Buckycubes have been
sold in U.S. retail stores nationwide and online since 2010 for
between $5 and $100.

Consumers should take the high-powered magnet sets and all
associated individual magnets away from children and teenagers and
contact the retailer from which they purchased the product to
obtain instructions for their remedy:

   * Barnes & Noble may be reached toll-free at (855) 592-2993 or
     online at http://www.barnesandnoble.com/and click on
     "Product Recalls"

   * Bed Bath & Beyond may be reached toll-free at (800) 462-3966
     or online at http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/and select
     "Safety and Recalls" under Customer Service, then click on
     Recall Information

   * Brookstone may be reached toll-free at (866) 576-7337 or
     online at http://www.brookstone.com/and click on "Recall
     Information" under Shop Brookstone

   * Participating Hallmark retailers may be reached toll-free at
     (800) 425-5627 or online at
     http://www.hallmark.com/recall-product/

   * Marbles the Brain Store may be reached toll-free at (877)
     527-2460 or online at http://www.marblesthebrainstore.com/

   * ThinkGeek may be reached toll-free at (888) 433-5788 or
     online at http://www.thinkgeek.com/buckyballs/index.shtml

These retailers have agreed to participate because Maxfield &
Oberton has refused to participate in the recall of all Buckyballs
and Buckycubes.

In July 2012, CPSC staff filed an administrative complaint against
Maxfield & Oberton Holdings LLC, of New York, N.Y., after
discussions with the company and its representatives failed to
result in a voluntary recall plan that CPSC staff considered to be
adequate to address the very serious hazard posed by these
products.  This type of legal action against a company is rare, as
CPSC has filed only four administrative complaints in the past 11
years.

CPSC has received 54 reports of children and teens ingesting this
product, with 53 of these requiring medical interventions.


BATTENFELD TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 4,000 Handgun Security Vaults
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
Battenfeld Technologies Inc., of Columbia, Missouri, announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,900 Compact and Large Handgun Security
Vaults in the United States of America and about 100 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The lock can fail and allow unintended access to the contents of
the vault.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall is for combination lock models of Lockdown(R) Compact
and Large handgun security vaults.  The vaults are black, steel
cases used to store handguns or other valuables at home, in the
car or when traveling.  The Compact vault's interior is 5.25
inches wide, 8.25 long and 1.5 inches deep and can store most
compact automatics and revolvers.  The Large vault's interior is
6.125 inches wide, 9.75 inches long and 1.5 inches deep and can
store most full-sized automatics and revolvers with barrels up to
4 inches long.  The vaults are lined with foam padding in the top
and bottom and are secured by a three-digit combination lock.  A
label with the words "Lockdown" and "www.lockdownvaults.com" is
located to the left of the combination lock.  The serial number is
located on a paper label on the inside surface of the vault bottom
under the foam.  Recalled Compact and Large vaults have serial
numbers from ST120002600 to ST120006800.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/hcih1b

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at small
sporting goods and specialty stores nationwide and online
retailers from May 2012 to Mar 2013 both for around $21.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled handgun
vaults and contact Battenfeld Technologies to return the vault for
a full refund.  Battenfeld Technologies Inc. may be reached toll
free at (877) 509-9160 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.lockdownvaults.com/and click on "Product Recall."


BP PLC: Atlantic Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigment
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of BP p.l.c. continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging injury to persons and property caused by
lead pigment in paint, according to the Company's
March 6, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Since 1987, Atlantic Richfield Company (Atlantic Richfield), a
subsidiary of BP, has been named as a co-defendant in numerous
lawsuits brought in the U.S. alleging injury to persons and
property caused by lead pigment in paint.  The majority of the
lawsuits have been abandoned or dismissed against Atlantic
Richfield.  Atlantic Richfield is named in these lawsuits as
alleged successor to International Smelting and Refining and
another company that manufactured lead pigment during the period
1920-1946.  The Plaintiffs include individuals and governmental
entities.  Several of the lawsuits purport to be class actions.
The lawsuits seek various remedies including compensation to lead-
poisoned children, cost to find and remove lead paint from
buildings, medical monitoring and screening programmes, public
warning and education of lead hazards, reimbursement of government
healthcare costs and special education for lead-poisoned citizens
and punitive damages.  No lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield has
been settled nor has Atlantic Richfield been subject to a final
adverse judgment in any proceeding.

The Company says the amounts claimed and, if such lawsuits were
successful, the costs of implementing the remedies sought in the
various cases could be substantial.  While it is not possible to
predict the outcome of these legal actions, Atlantic Richfield
believes that it has valid defences.  Atlantic Richfield intends
to defend such actions vigorously and believes that the incurrence
of lia2bility is remote.  Consequently, BP believes that the
impact of these lawsuits on the group's results, financial
position or liquidity will not be material.

BP p.l.c. -- http://www.bp.com/-- is the parent company of the BP
group of companies.  The company was incorporated in 1909 in
England and Wales and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom.
BP is one of the world's leading integrated oil and gas companies.


BP PLC: Continues to Defend Suits Due to Flaring Event in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. continues to defend itself against lawsuits arising from
a flaring event that occurred at a Texas refinery in 2010,
according to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

A flaring event occurred at the Texas City refinery in April and
May 2010.  This flaring event is the subject of civil lawsuit
claims for personal injury and, in some cases, property damage by
roughly 50,000 individuals.  These lawsuit claims have been
consolidated in a Texas multi-district litigation proceeding in
Galveston, Texas.  A trial of six selected plaintiffs is scheduled
for trial in September 2013.  Also, this flaring event, and other
refinery emissions from December 2008 through 2010, is the subject
of a purported class action, on behalf of some local residential
property owners, filed in U.S. federal district court in
Galveston.  The purported class plaintiffs claim that refinery
emissions caused their residential properties to lose value.  No
class has been certified, and no trial date has been set.  In
addition, the flares involved in this event are the subject of a
federal government enforcement action.

BP p.l.c. -- http://www.bp.com/-- is the parent company of the BP
group of companies.  The company was incorporated in 1909 in
England and Wales and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom.
BP is one of the world's leading integrated oil and gas companies.


BP PLC: Defends Deepwater Horizon-Related Suits & Investigations
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries from
litigations and investigations arising from the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon incident, according to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

                 2010 Deepwater Horizon Incident

BP p.l.c., BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BPXP) and various
other BP entities (collectively referred to as BP) are among the
companies named as defendants in approximately 750 civil lawsuits
resulting from the April 20, 2010 explosions and fire on the semi-
submersible rig Deepwater Horizon and resulting oil spill (the
Incident) and further actions are likely to be brought.  BPXP is
lease operator of Mississippi Canyon, Block 252 in the Gulf of
Mexico (Macondo), where the Deepwater Horizon was deployed at the
time of the Incident.  The other working interest owners at the
time of the Incident were Anadarko Petroleum Company (Anadarko)
and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX).  The Deepwater Horizon, which
was owned and operated by certain affiliates of Transocean Ltd.
(Transocean), sank on April 22, 2010.  The pending lawsuits and/or
claims arising from the Incident have generally been brought in
the U.S. federal and state courts.  The Plaintiffs include
individuals, corporations, insurers, and governmental entities and
many of the lawsuits purport to be class actions.  The lawsuits
assert, among others, claims for personal injury in connection
with the Incident itself and the response to it, wrongful death,
commercial and economic injury, breach of contract and violations
of statutes.  The lawsuits seek various remedies including
compensation to injured workers and families of deceased workers,
recovery for commercial losses and property damage, compensation
for personal injuries and medical monitoring, claims for
environmental damage, remediation costs, claims for unpaid wages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, treble damages and punitive
damages.  Purported classes of claimants include residents of the
states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina; property owners
and rental agents, fishermen and persons dependent on the fishing
industry, charter boat owners and deck hands, marina owners,
gasoline distributors, shipping interests, restaurant and hotel
owners, cruise lines and others who are property and/or business
owners alleged to have suffered economic loss; and response
workers and residents claiming injuries due to exposure to the
components of oil and/or chemical dispersants.  Among other claims
arising from the spill response efforts, lawsuits have been filed
claiming that additional payments are due by BP under certain
Master Vessel Charter Agreements entered into in the course of the
Vessels of Opportunity Program implemented as part of the response
to the Incident.  Purported class action and individual lawsuits
have also been filed in U.S. state and federal courts, as well as
one lawsuit in Canada, against BP entities and/or various current
and former officers and directors alleging, among other things,
shareholder derivative claims, securities fraud claims, violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and
contractual and quasi-contractual claims related to the
cancellation of the dividend on June 16, 2010.  In August 2010,
many of the lawsuits pending in federal court were consolidated by
the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation into two
multi-district litigation proceedings, one in federal court in
Houston for the securities, derivative, ERISA and dividend cases
and another in federal court in New Orleans for the remaining
cases.

BP has had discussions with the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ)
regarding possible settlements of the claims by the DoJ, other
federal agencies and certain States, in whole or in part, and
remains open to further discussions but there are a number of
significant issues and considerable uncertainty as to whether any
agreement could ultimately be reached.

On February 25, 2013, the first phase of a Trial of Liability,
Limitation, Exoneration and Fault Allocation commenced in the
federal multi-district litigation proceeding in New Orleans.

In addition, BP has been named in several lawsuits alleging claims
under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO).  On July 15, 2011, the judge granted BP's motion to
dismiss a master complaint raising RICO claims against BP.  The
court's order dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs in four RICO
cases encompassed by the master complaint.

                         New Orleans MDL

On August 26, 2011, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans granted in part BP's motion
to dismiss a master complaint raising claims for economic loss by
private plaintiffs, dismissing plaintiffs' state law claims and
limiting the types of maritime law claims plaintiffs may pursue,
but also held that certain classes of claimants may seek punitive
damages under general maritime law.  The judge did not, however,
lift an earlier stay on the underlying individual complaints
raising those claims or otherwise apply his dismissal of the
master complaint to those individual complaints.  On
September 30, 2011, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans granted in part BP's motion
to dismiss a master complaint asserting personal injury claims on
behalf of persons exposed to crude oil or chemical dispersants,
dismissing plaintiffs' state law claims, claims by seamen for
punitive damages, claims for medical monitoring damages by
asymptomatic plaintiffs, claims for battery and nuisance under
maritime law, and claims alleging negligence per se.  As with his
other rulings on motions to dismiss master complaints, the judge
did not lift an earlier stay on the underlying individual
complaints raising those claims or otherwise apply his dismissal
of the master complaint to those individual complaints.

Shareholder derivative lawsuits related to the Incident have been
filed in U.S. federal and state courts against various current and
former officers and directors of BP alleging, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, abuse of control
and waste of corporate assets.  On September 15, 2011, the judge
in the federal multi-district litigation proceeding in Houston
(MDL 2185) granted BP's motion to dismiss the consolidated
shareholder derivative litigation pending there on the grounds
that the courts of England are the appropriate forum for the
litigation.  On December 8, 2011, a final judgment was entered
dismissing the shareholder derivative case and, on January 3,
2012, one of the derivative plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On January 16,
2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the action.  The
plaintiffs in the two remaining state-court actions, which are
pending in Texas and Louisiana, have agreed to be bound by the
outcome of the federal case.

                       ADS-Related Actions

On February 13, 2012, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in Houston issued two decisions on the
defendants' motions to dismiss the two consolidated securities
fraud complaints filed on behalf of purported classes of BP
ordinary shareholders and American depositary share (ADS) holders.
In those decisions the court dismissed all of the claims of the
ordinary shareholders, dismissed the claims of the lead class of
ADS holders against most of the individual defendants while
holding that a subset of the claims against two individual
defendants and the corporate defendants could proceed, and
dismissed all of the claims of a smaller purported subclass with
leave to re-plead in 20 days.  On April 2, 2012, the plaintiffs in
the lead class and subclass filed an amended consolidated
complaint with claims based on (1) the 12 alleged misstatements
that the court held were actionable in its February 2012 order on
BP's motion to dismiss the earlier complaints; and (2) 13 alleged
misstatements concerning BP's operating management system that the
judge either rejected with leave to re-plead or did not address in
his February decisions.  On May 2, 2012, defendants moved to
dismiss the claims based on the 13 statements in the amended
complaint that the judge did not already rule are actionable.  On
February 6, 2013, the judge granted in part this motion to
dismiss, rejecting plaintiffs' claims based on 10 of the 17
statements at issue in the motion and also dismissing all claims
against Andrew Inglis.  On March 5, 2013, the court announced that
a trial date has been scheduled for August 25, 2014.

In April and May 2012, six new cases (three of which were
consolidated into one action) were filed in state and federal
courts by one or more state, county or municipal pension funds
against BP entities and several current and former officers and
directors seeking damages for alleged losses those funds suffered
because of their purchases of BP ordinary shares and, in two
cases, ADSs.  The funds assert various state law and federal law
claims.  All of the cases have been transferred to the judge in
the federal multi-district litigation proceeding in Houston. In
May and June, the plaintiffs in the two cases that were filed in
state court moved to send those cases back to state court, which
was denied on October 3, 2012.  On January 4, 2013, the judge
denied a motion to certify that decision for immediate appeal.  On
December 21, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss these
cases.  From July 2012 to January 2013, nine additional cases were
filed in Texas state and federal courts (four of which were
consolidated into one action) by pension or investment funds
against BP entities and current and former officers, asserting
Texas state law claims and seeking damages for alleged losses that
those funds suffered because of their purchases of BP ordinary
shares.  All of the cases have been transferred to federal court
in Houston, and it is anticipated that they will be handled by the
same judge presiding over the multi-district litigation
proceeding.

On July 20, 2012, a BP entity received an amended statement of
claim for an action in Alberta, Canada, filed by three plaintiffs
seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against BP on behalf
of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered losses
because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and ADSs.  This
case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds on November 14, 2012.
On November 15, 2012, one of the plaintiffs re-filed a statement
of claim against BP in Ontario, Canada, seeking to assert the same
claims under Canadian law against BP on behalf of a class of
Canadian residents.  BP informed the Ontario court that it intends
to contest jurisdiction, and a hearing on this issue has been
scheduled for September 23-24, 2013.

                       MDL 2185 in Houston

On July 5, 2012, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in Houston (MDL 2185) issued a decision
granting the defendants' motions to dismiss, for lack of personal
jurisdiction, the lawsuit against BP p.l.c. for cancelling its
dividend payment in June 2010.  On August 10, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which BP moved to dismiss on October
9, 2012.

On March 30, 2012, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in Houston (MDL 2185) issued a decision
granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the ERISA case related
to BP share funds in several employee benefit savings plans.  On
April 11, 2012, the plaintiffs requested leave to file an amended
complaint, which was denied on August 27, 2012.  Final judgment
dismissing the case was entered on September 4, 2012, and, on
September 25, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

                        DOJ Investigation

On June 1, 2010, the DoJ announced that it was conducting an
investigation into the Incident encompassing possible violations
of U.S. civil or criminal laws.  The DoJ announced on March 7,
2011, that it had created a unified task force of federal
agencies, led by the DoJ Criminal Division, to investigate the
Incident.  Other U.S. federal agencies still may commence
investigations relating to the Incident.  The SEC and DoJ also
investigated potential securities law violations, including
potential securities fraud claims, alleged to have arisen in
relation to the Incident.  On November 15, 2012, BP announced that
it reached agreement with the U.S. government, subject to court
approval, to resolve all federal criminal charges and all claims
by the SEC against BP arising from the Deepwater Horizon accident,
oil spill and response.

On January 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana accepted BP's pleas regarding the federal
criminal charges, and BP was sentenced in connection with the
criminal plea agreement.  BP pleaded guilty to 11 felony counts of
Misconduct or Neglect of Ships Officers relating to the loss of 11
lives; one misdemeanour count under the Clean Water Act; one
misdemeanour count under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and one
felony count of obstruction of Congress.  The final judgment and
order of the U.S. District Court is provided as Exhibit 99.1 to
this Annual Report and Form 20-F 2012.

Pursuant to that sentence, BP will pay $4 billion, including
$1.256 billion in criminal fines, in instalments over a period of
five years.  Under the terms of the criminal plea agreement, a
total of $2.394 billion will be paid to the National Fish &
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) over a period of five years. In
addition, $350 million will be paid to the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) over a period of five years.  The court also
ordered, as previously agreed with the U.S. government, that BP
serve a term of five years' probation.  Pursuant to the terms of
the plea agreement, the court also ordered certain equitable
relief, including additional actions, enforceable by the court, to
further enhance the safety of drilling operations in the Gulf of
Mexico.  These requirements relate to BP's risk management
processes, such as third-party auditing and verification, BP's Oil
Spill Response Plan, training, and well control equipment and
processes such as blowout preventers and cementing.  BP has also
agreed to maintain a real-time drilling operations monitoring
centre in Houston or another appropriate location.  In addition,
BP will undertake several initiatives with academia and regulators
to develop new technologies related to deepwater drilling safety.
The resolution also provides for the appointment of two monitors,
both with terms of four years.  A process safety monitor will
review, evaluate and provide recommendations for the improvement
of BP's process safety and risk management procedures including,
but not limited to, BP's risk review of processes concerning
deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  An ethics monitor will
review and provide recommendations for the improvement of BP's
code of conduct and its implementation and enforcement.  BP has
also agreed to hire an independent third-party auditor who will
review and report to the probation officer, the DoJ and BP
regarding BP's implementation of key terms of the proposed
settlement, including procedures and systems related to safety and
environmental management, operational oversight, and oil spill
response training and drills.  Under the plea agreement, BP has
also agreed to co-operate in ongoing criminal actions and
investigations, including prosecutions of four former employees
who have been separately charged.

In its resolution with the SEC, BP has resolved the SEC's
Deepwater Horizon-related claims against the Company under
Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the associated rules.  BP has agreed to a civil penalty of
$525 million, payable in three installments over a period of three
years, and has consented to the entry of an injunction prohibiting
it from violating certain U.S. securities laws and regulations.
The SEC's claims are premised on oil flow rate estimates contained
in three reports provided by BP to the SEC during a one-week
period (on April 29 and 30, 2010, and May 4, 2010), within the
first 14 days after the accident.  BP's consent was incorporated
in a final judgment and court order on
December 10, 2012, and BP made its first payment of $175 million
on December 11, 2012.  BP's consent and the final judgment and
order of the U.S. District Court are provided as Exhibit 99.2 and
Exhibit 99.3 to this Annual Report and Form 20-F 2012.

BP's November 2012 agreement with the U.S. government does not
resolve the DoJ's civil claims, such as claims for civil penalties
under the Clean Water Act or claims for natural resource damages
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).  Neither does it
resolve the private securities claims pending in the multi-
district litigation proceedings in Houston (MDL 2185).

                   Temporary Suspension by EPA

On November 28, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) notified BP that it had temporarily suspended BP p.l.c.,
BPXP and a number of other BP subsidiaries from participating in
new federal contracts.  As a result of the temporary suspension,
the BP entities listed in the notice are ineligible to receive any
U.S. government contracts either through the award of a new
contract, or the extension of the term of or renewal of an
expiring contract.  The suspension does not affect existing
contracts the company has with the U.S. government, including
those relating to current and ongoing drilling and production
operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

The charges to which BPXP pleaded guilty included one misdemeanour
count under the Clean Water Act that, by operation of law
following the court's acceptance of BPXP's plea, triggers a
statutory debarment, also referred to as mandatory debarment, of
the BPXP facility where the Clean Water Act violation occurred.
On February 1, 2013, the EPA issued a notice that BPXP was
mandatorily debarred at its Houston headquarters.

Mandatory debarment prevents a company from entering into new
contracts or new leases with the U.S. government that would be
performed at the facility where the Clean Water Act violation
occurred.  A mandatory debarment does not affect any existing
contracts or leases a company has with the U.S. government and
will remain in place until such time as the debarment is lifted
through an agreement with the EPA.

With respect to the entities named in the temporary suspension,
the temporary suspension may be maintained or the EPA may elect to
issue a notice of proposed discretionary debarment to some or all
of the named entities.  Like suspension, a discretionary debarment
would preclude BP entities listed in the notice from receiving new
federal fuel contracts, as well as new oil and gas leases,
although existing contracts and leases will continue.
Discretionary debarment typically lasts three to five years and
may be imposed for a longer period, unless it is resolved through
an administrative agreement.  To date, the EPA has not issued such
notice of proposed discretionary debarment to any of the entities
named in the temporary suspension.

While BP's discussions with the EPA have been taking place in
parallel to the court proceedings on the criminal plea, the
company's work toward reaching an administrative agreement with
the EPA is a separate process, and it may take some time to
resolve issues relating to such an agreement.  BPXP's mandatory
debarment applies following sentencing and is not an indication of
any change in the status of discussions with the EPA.  The process
for resolving both mandatory and discretionary debarment is
essentially the same as for resolving the temporary suspension. BP
continues to work with the EPA in preparing an administrative
agreement that will resolve suspension and debarment issues.  On
February 15, 2013, BP filed an administrative challenge with the
EPA seeking to lift the November 28, 2012 suspension of 22 BP
entities and the
February 1, 2013 statutory debarment of BPXP at its Houston
headquarters.  BP maintains that the EPA's actions do not reflect
BP's present status as a responsible government contractor.  The
EPA will review the administrative record and determine whether to
change its decision.  Decisions reached by the EPA can be
challenged in federal court.

                           DoJ Action

The United States filed a civil complaint in the multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans against BPXP and others on
December 15, 2010 (DoJ Action).  The complaint seeks a declaration
of liability under OPA 90 and civil penalties under the Clean
Water Act and sets forth a purported reservation of rights on
behalf of the U.S. to amend the complaint or file additional
complaints seeking various remedies under various U.S. federal
laws and statutes.

A Trial of Liability, Limitation, Exoneration, and Fault
Allocation was originally scheduled to begin in the federal multi-
district litigation proceeding in New Orleans in February 2012.
The court's pre-trial order issued September 14, 2011, provided
for the trial to proceed in three phases and to include issues
asserted in or relevant to the claims, counterclaims, cross-
claims, third-party claims, and comparative fault defences raised
in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Action.  Pursuant to an
amended pre-trial order dated May 30, 2012, the first phase of the
Trial of Liability, Limitation, Exoneration, and Fault Allocation
commenced on February 25, 2013.  The first trial phase will
address issues arising out of the conduct of various parties
allegedly relevant to the loss of well control at the Macondo
well, the ensuing fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon on
April 20, 2010, the sinking of the vessel on April 22, 2010, and
the initiation of the release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon or
the Macondo well during those time periods, including whether BP
or any other party was grossly negligent.  The second trial phase,
which is projected to commence in September 2013, will address (i)
"source control" issues pertaining to the conduct or inaction of
BP, Transocean or other relevant parties regarding stopping the
release of hydrocarbons stemming from the Incident from April 22,
2010, through approximately September 19, 2010, and (ii)
"quantification of discharge" issues pertaining to the amount of
oil actually released into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the
Incident from the time when these releases began until the Macondo
well was capped on approximately July 15, 2010, and then
permanently cemented shut on approximately September 19, 2010.

On April 20, 2011, BP filed claims against Cameron International
Corporation (Cameron), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
(Halliburton), and Transocean in the DoJ Action, seeking
contribution for any assessments against BP under OPA 90 based on
those entities' fault.  On June 20, 2011, Cameron and Halliburton
moved to dismiss BP's claims against them in the DoJ Action.  BP's
claim against Cameron has been resolved pursuant to settlement,
but Halliburton's motion remains pending.

On May 30, 2011, Transocean filed claims against BP in the DoJ
Action alleging that BP America Production Company had breached
its contract with Transocean Holdings LLC by not agreeing to
indemnify Transocean against liability related to the Incident.
Transocean also asserted claims against BP under state law,
maritime law and OPA 90 for contribution.  On June 20, 2011,
Cameron filed similar claims against BP in the DoJ Action.

On December 8, 2011, the United States brought a motion for
partial summary judgment seeking, among other things, an order
finding that BP, Transocean and Anadarko are strictly liable for a
civil penalty under Section 311(b) (7)(A) of the Clean Water Act.
On February 22, 2012, the judge ruled on motions filed in the DoJ
Action by the United States, Anadarko, and Transocean seeking
early rulings regarding the liability of BP, Anadarko and
Transocean under OPA 90 and the Clean Water Act, but limited the
order to addressing the discharge of hydrocarbons occurring under
the surface of the water.  Regarding OPA 90, the judge held that
BP and Anadarko are responsible parties under OPA 90 with regard
to the subsurface discharge.  The judge ruled that BP and Anadarko
have joint and several liability under OPA 90 for removal costs
and damages for such discharge, but did not rule on whether such
liability under OPA 90 is unlimited.  While the judge held that
Transocean is not a responsible party under OPA 90 for subsurface
discharge, the judge left open the question of whether Transocean
may be liable under OPA 90 for removal costs for such discharge as
the owner/operator of the Deepwater Horizon.  Regarding the Clean
Water Act, the judge held that the subsurface discharge was from
the Macondo well, rather than from the Deepwater Horizon, and that
BP and Anadarko are liable for civil penalties under Section 311
of the Clean Water Act as owners of the well.  The judge left open
the question of whether Transocean may be liable under the Clean
Water Act as an operator of the Macondo well.  Anadarko, BP and
the United States have each appealed the February 22, 2012 ruling
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the
appeals have been consolidated.  On October 23, 2012, Transocean
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely and for lack of
jurisdiction.  On February 5, 2013, the appeals court denied
Transocean's motion.

On January 11, 2013, BP filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against the United States, seeking rulings that (1) BP
collected at least 810,000 barrels from the broken riser, from the
top of the blowout preventer and lower marine riser package, and
from the choke and kill lines of the blowout preventer, all before
these barrels reached the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and (2)
that these barrels may not be counted toward the maximum penalty
potentially to be assessed against BP under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1321.  The court set a schedule
under which briefing on BP's motion will be complete in February
2013.  On February 15, 2013, BP and the United States reached a
stipulation, entered by the court on February 19, 2013.  The
stipulation provides that 810,000 barrels of oil were collected
without coming into contact with ambient Gulf waters and that
those 810,000 barrels of oil are not to be used in calculating the
statutory maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act.

On March 1, 2013, Transocean sought the MDL 2179 court's leave to
supplement its pleadings to include an affirmative defence
asserting that BP's representations regarding the flow rate at the
Macondo well constituted an intervening and superseding cause of
the oil spill for the majority of its duration.  Transocean's
defence claims that BP fraudulently misrepresented and concealed
information regarding the flow rate at the Macondo well in late
April and May 2010, as well as the likelihood of success of a top-
kill approach to stopping the flow of hydrocarbons from the well,
and thus prevented the implementation of alternative means of
source control that Transocean asserts could have capped the well
as early as May 2010.  Also on March 1, 2013, Halliburton filed a
motion for leave to amend its answers in MDL 2179 to assert a
similar defence.

                   Suit vs. Anadarko and MOEX

On April 4, 2011, BP initiated contractual out-of-court dispute
resolution proceedings against Anadarko and MOEX, claiming that
they have breached the parties' contract by failing to reimburse
BP for their working-interest share of Incident-related costs.  On
April 19, 2011, Anadarko filed a cross-claim against BP, alleging
gross negligence and 15 other counts under state and federal laws.
Anadarko sought a declaration that it was excused from its
contractual obligation to pay Incident-related costs.  Anadarko
also sought damages from alleged economic losses and contribution
or indemnity for claims filed against it by other parties.  On May
20, 2011, BP and MOEX announced a settlement agreement of all
claims between them, including a cross-claim brought by MOEX on
April 19, 2011, similar to the Anadarko claim.  Under the
settlement agreement, MOEX has paid BP $1.065 billion, which BP
has applied towards the $20-billion Trust, and has also agreed to
transfer all of its 10% interest in the MC252 lease to BP.  On
October 17, 2011, BP and Anadarko announced that they had reached
a final agreement to settle all claims between the companies
related to the Incident, including mutual releases of all claims
between BP and Anadarko that are subject to the contractual out-
of-court dispute resolution proceedings or the federal multi-
district litigation proceeding in New Orleans.  Under the
settlement agreement, Anadarko has paid BP $4 billion, which BP
has applied towards the $20-billion Trust, and has also agreed to
transfer all of its 25% interest in the MC252 lease to BP.  The
settlement agreement also grants Anadarko the opportunity for a
12.5% participation in certain future recoveries from third
parties and certain insurance proceeds in the event that such
recoveries and proceeds exceed $1.5 billion in aggregate.  Any
such payments to Anadarko are capped at a total of $1 billion.  BP
has agreed to indemnify Anadarko and MOEX for certain claims
arising from the Incident (excluding civil, criminal or
administrative fines and penalties, claims for punitive damages,
and certain other claims).  The settlement agreements with
Anadarko and MOEX are not an admission of liability by any party
regarding the Incident.

                        Transocean Action

On February 18, 2011, Transocean filed a third-party complaint
against BP, the U.S. government, and other corporations involved
in the Incident, naming those entities as formal parties in its
Limitation of Liability action pending in federal court in New
Orleans.

On April 20, 2011, Transocean filed claims in its Limitation of
Liability action alleging that BP had breached BP America
Production Company's contract with Transocean Holdings LLC by BP
not agreeing to indemnify Transocean against liability related to
the Incident and by not paying certain invoices.  Transocean also
asserted claims against BP under state law, maritime law, and OPA
90 for contribution.  On November 1, 2011, Transocean filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on certain claims filed in the
Limitation Action and the DoJ Action between BP and Transocean.
Transocean's motion sought an order that would bar BP's
contribution claims against Transocean and require BP to defend
and indemnify Transocean against all pollution claims, including
those resulting from any gross negligence, and from civil fines
and penalties sought by the government.  On
December 7, 2011, BP filed a cross-motion for summary judgment
seeking an order that BP is not required to indemnify Transocean
for any civil fines and penalties sought by the government or for
punitive damages.

On January 26, 2012, the judge ruled on BP's and Transocean's
indemnity motions, holding that BP is required to indemnify
Transocean for third-party claims for compensatory damages
resulting from pollution originating beneath the surface of the
water, regardless of whether the claim results from Transocean's
strict liability, negligence or gross negligence.  The court,
however, ruled that BP does not owe Transocean indemnity for such
claims to the extent Transocean is held liable for punitive
damages or for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, or if
Transocean acted with intentional or wilful misconduct in excess
of gross negligence.  The court further held that BP's obligation
to defend Transocean for third-party claims does not require BP to
fund Transocean's defence of third-party claims at this time, nor
does it include Transocean's expenses in proving its right to
indemnity.  The court deferred a final ruling on the question of
whether Transocean breached its drilling contract with BP so as to
invalidate the contract's indemnity clause.

              Halliburton's Indemnification Claims

On April 20, 2011, Halliburton filed claims in Transocean's
Limitation of Liability action seeking indemnification from BP for
claims brought against Halliburton in that action, and Cameron
asserted claims against BP for contribution under state law,
maritime law and OPA 90, as well as for contribution on the basis
of comparative fault.  Halliburton also asserted a claim for
negligence, gross negligence and wilful misconduct against BP and
others.  On April 19, 2011, Halliburton filed a separate lawsuit
in Texas state court seeking indemnification from BPXP for certain
tort and pollution-related liabilities resulting from the
Incident.  On May 3, 2011, BPXP removed Halliburton's case to
federal court, and on August 9, 2011, the action was transferred
to the federal multi-district litigation proceedings pending in
New Orleans.

Subsequently, on November 30, 2011, Halliburton filed a motion for
summary judgment in the federal multi-district litigation
proceedings pending in New Orleans.  Halliburton's motion sought
an order stating that Halliburton is entitled to full and complete
indemnity, including payment of defence costs, from BP for claims
related to the Incident and denying BP's claims seeking
contribution against Halliburton.  On December 21, 2011, BP filed
a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that
BP has no contractual obligation to indemnify Halliburton for
fines, penalties or punitive damages resulting from the Incident.

On January 31, 2012, the judge ruled on BP's and Halliburton's
indemnity motions, holding that BP is required to indemnify
Halliburton for third-party claims for compensatory damages
resulting from pollution that did not originate from property or
equipment of Halliburton located above the surface of the land or
water, regardless of whether the claims result from Halliburton's
gross negligence.  The court, however, ruled that BP does not owe
Halliburton indemnity to the extent that Halliburton is held
liable for punitive damages or for civil penalties under the Clean
Water Act.  The court further held that BP's obligation to defend
Halliburton for third-party claims does not require BP to fund
Halliburton's defence of third-party claims at this time, nor does
it include Halliburton's expenses in proving its right to
indemnity.  The court deferred ruling on whether BP is required to
indemnify Halliburton for any penalties or fines under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act.  It also deferred ruling on whether
Halliburton acted so as to invalidate the indemnity by breaching
its contract with BP, by committing fraud, or by committing
another act that materially increased the risk to BP or prejudiced
the rights of BP as an indemnitor.

On September 1, 2011, Halliburton filed an additional lawsuit
against BP in Texas state court.  Its complaint alleges that BP
did not identify the existence of a purported hydrocarbon zone at
the Macondo well to Halliburton in connection with Halliburton's
cement work performed before the Incident and that BP has
concealed the existence of this purported hydrocarbon zone
following the Incident.  Halliburton claims that the alleged
failure to identify this information has harmed its business
ventures and reputation and resulted in lost profits and other
damages.  On September 16, 2011, BP removed the action to federal
court, where it was stayed until it was transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans.  On September 1, 2011,
Halliburton also moved to amend its claims in Transocean's
Limitation of Liability action to add claims for fraud based on
similar factual allegations to those included in its September 1,
2011 lawsuit against BP in Texas state court.  On October 11,
2011, the magistrate judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans denied Halliburton's motion
to amend its claims, and Halliburton's motion to review the order
was denied by the judge on December 19, 2011.

On April 20, 2011, BP asserted claims against Cameron, Halliburton
and Transocean in the Limitation of Liability action.  BP's claims
against Transocean include breach of contract, unseaworthiness of
the Deepwater Horizon vessel, negligence (or gross negligence
and/or gross fault as may be established at trial based upon the
evidence), contribution and subrogation for costs (including those
arising from litigation claims) resulting from the Incident, as
well as a declaratory claim that Transocean is wholly or partly at
fault for the Incident and responsible for its proportionate share
of the costs and damages.  BP asserted claims against Halliburton
for fraud and fraudulent concealment based on Halliburton's
misrepresentations to BP concerning, among other things, the
stability testing on the foamed cement used at the Macondo well;
for negligence (or, if established by the evidence at trial, gross
negligence) based on Halliburton's performance of its professional
services, including cementing and mud logging services; and for
contribution and subrogation for amounts that BP has paid in
responding to the Incident, as well as in OPA assessments and in
payments to plaintiffs.  BP filed a similar complaint in federal
court in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against
Halliburton, and the action was transferred on May 4, 2011, to the
federal multi-district litigation proceeding pending in New
Orleans.

On December 16, 2011, BP and Cameron announced their agreement to
settle all claims between the companies related to the Incident,
including mutual releases of claims between BP and Cameron that
are subject to the federal multi-district litigation proceeding in
New Orleans.  Under the settlement agreement, Cameron has paid BP
$250 million in cash in January 2012, which BP has applied towards
the $20-billion Trust.  BP has agreed to indemnify Cameron for
compensatory claims arising from the Incident, including claims
brought relating to pollution damage or any damage to natural
resources, but excluding civil, criminal or administrative fines
and penalties, claims for punitive damages, and certain other
claims.

                   Dril-Quip and M-I's Claims

On May 20, 2011, Dril-Quip, Inc. and M-I L.L.C. (M-I) filed claims
against BP in Transocean's Limitation of Liability action, each
claiming a right to contribution from BP for damages assessed
against them as a result of the Incident, based on allegations of
negligence.  M-I also claimed a right to indemnity for such
damages based on its well services contracts with BP.  On June 20,
2011, BP filed counter-complaints against Dril-Quip, Inc. and M-I,
asking for contribution and subrogation based on those entities'
fault in connection with the Incident and under OPA 90, and
seeking declaratory judgment that Dril-Quip, Inc. and M-I caused
or contributed to, and are responsible in whole or in part for
damages incurred by BP in relation to the Incident.  On January
20, 2012, the court granted Dril-Quip, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment, dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted against
Dril-Quip in the federal multi-district litigation proceeding in
New Orleans.

On January 21, 2012, BP and M-I entered into an agreement settling
all claims between the companies related to the Incident,
including mutual releases of claims between BP and M-I that are
subject to the federal multi-district litigation proceeding in New
Orleans.  Under the settlement agreement, M-I has agreed to
indemnify BP for personal injury and death claims brought by M-I
employees.  BP has agreed to indemnify M-I for claims resulting
from the Incident, but excluding certain claims.

                  Coast Guard and BOEMRE Report

On September 14, 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) issued a
report (BOEMRE Report) regarding the causes of the April 20, 2010
Macondo well blowout.  The BOEMRE Report states that decisions by
BP, Halliburton and Transocean increased the risk or failed to
fully consider or mitigate the risk of a blowout on April 20,
2010.  The BOEMRE Report also states that BP, Transocean and
Halliburton violated certain regulations related to offshore
drilling.  In itself, the BOEMRE Report does not constitute the
initiation of enforcement proceedings relating to any violation.
On October 12, 2011, the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued to BPXP, Transocean,
and Halliburton Notification of Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs).
The notification issued to BPXP is for a number of alleged
regulatory violations concerning Macondo well operations.  The
Department of Interior has indicated that this list of violations
may be supplemented as additional evidence is reviewed, and on
December 7, 2011, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement issued to BPXP a second INC.  This notification was
issued to BP for five alleged violations related to drilling and
abandonment operations at the Macondo well.  BP has filed an
administrative appeal with respect to the first and second INCs.
BP has filed a joint stay of proceedings with the Department of
Interior with respect to both INCs.

On October 18, 2011, Cameron filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking an order
vacating the trial plan for the February 27, 2012 trial and
requiring that all claims against Cameron in that proceeding be
tried before a jury.  On December 26, 2011, the Court of Appeals
denied the application for mandamus.

               Actions by Alabama and Other States

The State of Alabama has filed a lawsuit seeking damages for
alleged economic and environmental harms, including natural
resource damages, civil penalties under state law, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and punitive damages as a result of the
Incident.  The State of Louisiana has filed a lawsuit to declare
various BP entities (as well as other entities) liable for removal
costs and damages, including natural resource damages under
federal and state law, to recover civil penalties, attorney's
fees, and response costs under state law, and to recover for
alleged negligence, nuisance, trespass, fraudulent concealment and
negligent misrepresentation of material facts regarding safety
procedures and BP's (and other defendants') ability to manage the
oil spill, unjust enrichment from economic and other damages to
the State of Louisiana and its citizens, and punitive damages.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality has issued an
administrative order seeking environmental civil penalties and
other relief under state law.  On
September 23, 2011, BP removed this matter to federal district
court, and it has been consolidated with the multi-district
proceedings in New Orleans.

District Attorneys of 11 parishes in the State of Louisiana have
filed lawsuits under state wildlife statutes seeking penalties for
damage to wildlife as a result of the spill.  On December 10,
2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality issued a
Complaint and Notice of Violation alleging violations of several
state environmental statutes.

On November 14, 2011, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans granted in part BP's motion
to dismiss the complaints filed by the States of Alabama and
Louisiana.  The judge's order dismissed the States' claims brought
under state law, including claims for civil penalties and the
State of Louisiana's request for a declaratory judgment under the
Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, holding that
those claims were pre-empted by federal law.  It also dismissed
the State of Louisiana's claims of nuisance and trespass under
general maritime law.  The judge's order further held that the
States have stated claims for negligence and products liability
under general maritime law, that the States have sufficiently
alleged presentment of their claims under OPA 90, and that the
States may seek punitive damages under general maritime law.  On
December 9, 2011, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans granted in part BP's motion
to dismiss a master complaint brought on behalf of local
government entities.  The judge's order dismissed plaintiffs'
state law claims and limited the types of maritime law claims
plaintiffs may pursue, but also held that the plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged presentment of their claims under OPA 90 and
that certain local government entity claimants may seek punitive
damages under general maritime law.  The judge did not, however,
lift an earlier stay on the underlying individual complaints
raising those claims or otherwise apply his dismissal of the
master complaint to those individual complaints.

In January 2013, the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida
formally presented their claims to BP under OPA 90 for alleged
losses including economic losses and property damage as a result
of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. BP is evaluating these claims.
The State of Louisiana has also asserted similar claims.  The
amounts claimed, certain of which include punitive damages or
other multipliers, are very substantial.  However, BP considers
the methodologies used to calculate these claims to be seriously
flawed, not supported by the legislation and to substantially
overstate the claims.  Claims have also been presented by various
local governments which are substantial in aggregate and more
claims are expected to be presented.  The amounts alleged in the
presentments for State and Local government claims total over $34
billion.  BP will defend vigorously against these claims if
adjudicated at trial.

On December 9, 2011, and December 28, 2011, the judge in the
federal multi-district litigation proceeding in New Orleans also
granted BP's motions to dismiss complaints filed by the District
Attorneys of 11 parishes in the State of Louisiana seeking
penalties for damage to wildlife, holding that those claims are
pre-empted by the Clean Water Act.  All 11 of the District
Attorneys of parishes in the State of Louisiana have now filed
notices of appeal.  The State of Alabama's attempt to intervene
into the case has been denied.  Since May 2012, amicus briefs have
been filed in those appeals by the States of Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi.  The appeal is now fully briefed and was
scheduled for oral argument on March 5, 2013.

                       MDL 2179 Settlement

On March 3, 2012, BP announced an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the federal multi-district
litigation proceedings pending in the federal district court in
New Orleans (MDL 2179) to settle the substantial majority of
legitimate private economic and property damages claims and
exposure-based medical claims stemming from the Incident.  On
April 18, 2012, BP and the PSC filed with that court the Economic
and Property Damages Settlement Agreement and the Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Economic and Property Damages Settlement resolves certain
economic and property damage claims, and the Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement resolves medical claims by response
workers and certain Gulf Coast residents.  The Economic and
Property Damages Settlement includes a $2.3-billion BP commitment
to help resolve economic loss claims related to the Gulf seafood
industry and a $57-million fund to support continued advertising
that promotes Gulf Coast tourism.  It also resolves property
damage in certain areas along the Gulf Coast, as well as claims
for additional payments under certain Master Vessel Charter
Agreements entered into in the course of the Vessels of
Opportunity Program implemented as part of the response to the
Incident.  The Economic and Property Damages Settlement does not
include claims made against BP by the DoJ or other federal
agencies (including under the Clean Water Act and for Natural
Resource Damages under the Oil Pollution Act) or by the states and
local governments.  Also excluded are certain other claims against
BP, such as securities and shareholder claims pending in MDL 2185,
and claims based solely on the deepwater drilling moratorium
and/or the related permitting process.

The Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement involves payments to
qualifying class members based on a matrix for certain Specified
Physical Conditions, as well as a 21-year Periodic Medical
Consultation Programme for qualifying class members.  Although
claims will not be paid until the agreement's Effective Date --
i.e., the final approval of the Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement and resolution of all appeals -- class members are
permitted to file claim forms in advance of the Effective Date to
facilitate administration of the Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement upon the Effective Date.  It also provides that class
members claiming Later-Manifested Physical Conditions may pursue
their claims through a mediation/litigation process, but waive,
among other things, the right to seek punitive damages.
Consistent with its commitment to the Gulf, BP has also agreed as
part of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement to provide
$105 million to the Gulf Region Health Outreach Program to improve
the availability, scope and quality of healthcare in certain Gulf
Coast communities.  This healthcare outreach programme will be
available to, and is intended to benefit, class members and other
individuals in those communities.

Each agreement provides that class members will be compensated for
their claims on a claims-made basis, according to agreed
compensation protocols in separate court-supervised claims
processes.  The compensation protocols under the Economic and
Property Damages Settlement provide for the payment of class
members' economic losses and property damages.  In addition many
economic and property damages class members will receive payments
based on negotiated risk transfer premiums (RTPs), which are
multiplication factors designed, in part, to compensate claimants
for potential future damages that are not currently known,
relating to the Incident.  The Economic and Property Damages
Settlement and the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement are
not an admission of liability by BP.  The settlements are uncapped
except for economic loss claims related to the Gulf seafood
industry under the Economic and Property Damages Settlement and
the $105 million to be provided to the Gulf Region Health Outreach
Program under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement.

As part of its monitoring of payments made by the court-supervised
claims processes operated by the Deepwater Horizon Court
Supervised Settlement Program (DHCSSP) for the Economic and
Property Damages Settlement, BP identified multiple business
economic loss claim determinations that appeared to result from an
interpretation of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement
Agreement by that settlement's claims administrator that BP
believes was incorrect.  This interpretation produced a higher
number and value of awards than the interpretation BP assumed in
making the initial estimate.  Pursuant to the mechanisms in the
Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement, the claims
administrator sought clarification from the court on this matter
and on January 30, 2013, the court initially upheld the claims
administrator's interpretation of the agreement.  On February 6,
2013, the court reconsidered and vacated its ruling of
January 30, 2013, and stayed the processing of certain types of
business economic loss claims.  The court lifted the stay on
February 28, 2013.  Other business economic loss claims have
continued to be paid at a higher average amount than previously
assumed by BP in determining its initial estimate of the total
cost.  On March 5, 2013, the court affirmed the claims
administrator's interpretation of the agreement and rejected BP's
position as it relates to business economic loss claims.  BP
strongly disagrees with the ruling of March 5, 2013, and the
current implementation of the agreement by the claims
administrator.  BP intends to pursue all available legal options,
including rights of appeal, to challenge this ruling.

BP initially estimated the cost of the Settlements, including
claims administration costs, to be approximately $7.8 billion
(including the $2.3- billion commitment to help resolve economic
loss claims related to the Gulf seafood industry).  During the
third quarter 2012, BP increased its estimate of the cost of
claims administration by $280 million, and during the fourth
quarter by a further $400 million.  Subsequently, management has
continued to analyse the business economic loss claims in the
period since February 5, 2013, to gain a better understanding of
whether or not the number and average value of claims received and
processed to date are predictive of future claims (and so would
allow management to estimate the total cost of the Settlements
reliably).  Management has concluded based upon this analysis that
it is not possible to determine whether this claims experience to
date is, or is not, an appropriate basis for determining the total
cost.  Therefore, given the inherent uncertainty that exists as BP
pursues all available legal options to challenge the recent ruling
and the higher number of claims received and higher average claims
payments than previously assumed by BP which may or may not
continue, management has concluded that no reliable estimate can
be made of any business economic loss claims not yet received or
processed by the DHCSSP.

BP's current estimate of the total cost of those elements of the
Settlements that can be estimated reliably, which excludes any
future business economic loss claims not yet received or processed
by the DHCSSP, is $7.7 billion.  If BP is successful in its
challenge to the court's ruling, the total estimated cost of the
Settlements will, nevertheless, be significantly higher than the
current estimate of $7.7 billion, because business economic loss
claims not yet received or processed are not reflected in the
current estimate and the average payments per claim determined so
far are higher than anticipated.  If BP is not successful in its
challenge to the court's ruling, a further significant increase to
the total estimated cost of the Settlements will be required.
However, there can be no certainty as to how the dispute will
ultimately be resolved or determined.  To the extent that there
are insufficient funds available in the Trust fund, payments under
the PSC settlement will be made by BP directly and charged to the
income statement.

The Company says significant uncertainties exist in relation to
the amount of claims that are to be paid and will become payable
through the claims process.  There is significant uncertainty in
relation to the amounts that ultimately will be paid in relation
to current claims, and the number, type and amounts payable for
claims not yet reported.  In addition, there is further
uncertainty in relation to interpretations of the claims
administrator regarding the protocols under the Economic and
Property Damages Settlement and judicial interpretation of these
protocols, and the outcomes of any further litigation including in
relation to potential opt-outs from the settlement or otherwise.
While BP has determined its current best estimate of the cost of
those aspects of the Settlements that can be measured reliably, it
is possible that the actual cost could be significantly higher
than this estimate due to the uncertainties.  In addition, a
provision will be re-established for remaining business economic
loss claims and the estimate will increase as more information
becomes available, the interpretation of the protocols is
clarified and the claims process matures, enabling BP to estimate
reliably the cost of these claims.

All class member settlements under these agreements are payable
under the terms of the Trust.  Other costs to be paid from the
Trust include State and Local government claims, state and local
response costs, natural resource damages and related claims, and
final judgments and settlements.  The Trust may not be sufficient
to satisfy all of these claims including those under the
settlement agreements.  Should the Trust not be sufficient,
payments under the settlement agreements would be made by BP
directly.

The Economic and Property Damages Settlement provides for a
transition from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) to a new
court-supervised claims programme, to administer payments made to
qualifying class members.  A court-supervised transitional claims
process was in operation while the infrastructure for the new
settlement claims process was put in place. During this
transitional period (now concluded), the processing of claims that
have been submitted to the GCCF continued, and new claimants
submitted their claims.  BP agreed not to wait for final approval
of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement to pay claims.
The economic and property damages claims process is under court
supervision through the settlement claims process established by
the Economic and Property Damages Settlement.

Under the Economic and Property Damages Settlement, class members
release and dismiss their claims against BP not expressly reserved
by that agreement.  The Economic and Property Damages Settlement
also provides that, to the extent permitted by law, BP assigns to
the PSC certain of its claims, rights and recoveries against
Transocean and Halliburton for damages with protections such that
Transocean and Halliburton cannot pass those damages through to
BP.  Under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement, class
members release and dismiss their claims against BP covered by
that settlement, except that class members do not release claims
for Later-Manifested Physical Conditions.

On May 2, 2012, the court overseeing the federal multi-district
litigation proceedings pending in New Orleans (MDL 2179) issued
orders preliminarily and conditionally certifying the Economic and
Property Damages Settlement Class and the Medical Benefits
Settlement Class and preliminarily approving the proposed Economic
and Property Damages Settlement and the proposed Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement.  Under U.S. federal law, there is an
established procedure for determining the fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy of class action settlements. Pursuant to this
procedure, an extensive notice programme to the public was
implemented to explain the settlement agreements and class
members' rights, including the right to "opt out" of the classes,
and the processes for making claims.  The court set a deadline of
August 31, 2012 (later extended to September 7, 2012), for class
members objecting to the Economic and Property Damages Settlement
and/or the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement to file their
objections with the court and a deadline of October 1, 2012 (later
extended to November 1, 2012), for class members to opt out of the
Economic and Property Damages Class and/or the Medical Benefits
Settlement Class.  The Deepwater Horizon Court Supervised
Settlement Program (DHCSSP), the new claims facility operating
under the frameworks established by the Economic and Property
Damages Settlement, commenced operation on June 4, 2012, under the
oversight of Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau.  The court
conducted a fairness hearing on November 8, 2012, in which to
consider, among other things, whether to grant final approval of
the Economic and Property Damages Settlement and the Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement, whether to certify the classes
for settlement purposes only, and the merits of any objections to
the settlement agreements.  At the fairness hearing, the parties
and objecting class members presented arguments for and against
the approval of each settlement agreement and the certification of
each settlement class.  On November 21, 2012, the parties to the
settlement filed a list of 13,123 individuals and entities who had
submitted timely requests to opt out of the Economic and Property
Damages Settlement Class and 1,638 individuals who had submitted
timely requests to opt out of the Medical Benefits Settlement
Class.  On November 16, 2012, the court extended the deadline from
November 5, 2012, to December 15, 2012, for such excluded persons
or entities to request revocation of their requests to opt out of
the settlement.  As a result of such revocations, the number of
opt-outs for the Economic and Property Damages Settlement and the
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement is fewer than those
reported figures.

Following the fairness hearing, both settlements were approved by
the district court.  The Economic and Property Damages Settlement
was approved on December 21, 2012, in a final order and judgment,
and the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement was approved by
the district court in a final order and judgment on January 11,
2013.  Since January 17, 2013, eight groups of purported members
of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Class have filed
notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit of the final order and judgment approving the Economic and
Property Damages Settlement.  Two groups of purported members of
the Medical Benefits Settlement Class have also appealed from the
final order and judgment approving the Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement.  Additionally, a coalition of fishing and
community groups has appealed from an order of the district court
denying it permission to intervene in the civil action serving as
the vehicle for the Economic and Property Damages Settlement and
further denying it permission to take discovery regarding the
fairness of that settlement.

On January 18, 2013, a purported class action was filed in federal
district court in New Orleans seeking relief for all persons
alleging losses caused by the Incident who are excluded from or
have opted out of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement.
On February 8, 2013, the action was consolidated with MDL 2179.

On July 11, 2012, BP filed motions to dismiss several categories
of claims in MDL 2179 that were not covered by the Economic and
Property Damages Settlement.  On October 1, 2012, the court
granted BP's motion, dismissing (1) claims alleging a reduction in
the value of real property caused by the oil spill or other
contaminant where the property was not physically touched by the
oil and the property was not sold; (2) claims by or on behalf of
entities marketing BP-branded fuels that they have suffered
damages, including loss of business, income, and profits, as a
result of the loss of value to the 'BP' brand or name; and (3)
claims by or on behalf of recreational fishermen, recreational
divers, beachgoers, recreational boaters, and similar claimants,
that they have suffered damages that include loss of enjoyment of
life from the inability to use of the Gulf of Mexico for
recreation and amusement purposes.  The judge did not, however,
lift an earlier stay on the underlying individual complaints
raising those claims or otherwise apply his dismissal of those
categories of claims to those individual complaints.  This order
was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
but the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on
January 28, 2013.  On February 19, 2013, the appeals court granted
appellants' motion to reinstate the appeal, and BP moved to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                    Actions by Mexican States

On September 15, 2010, three Mexican states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico (Veracruz, Quintana Roo, and Tamaulipas) filed lawsuits in
federal court in Texas against several BP entities.  These
lawsuits allege that the Incident harmed their tourism, fishing,
and commercial shipping industries (resulting in, among other
things, diminished tax revenue), damaged natural resources and the
environment, and caused the states to incur expenses in preparing
a response to the Incident.  On December 9, 2011, the judge in the
federal multi-district litigation proceeding in New Orleans
granted in part BP's motion to dismiss the three Mexican states'
complaints, dismissing their claims under OPA 90 and for nuisance
and negligence per se, and preserving their claims for negligence
and gross negligence only to the extent there has been a physical
injury to a proprietary interest of the states.  The court in MDL
2179 has also set a schedule for targeted discovery and motions on
the legal issue of whether the Mexican States of Quintana Roo,
Tamaulipas, and Veracruz have a justiciable claim.  BP, other
defendants, and the three Mexican States filed cross-motions for
summary judgment on January 4, 2013, on the issue of whether the
Mexican States have a proprietary interest in the matters asserted
in their complaints, and the motions remain pending.  On April 5,
2011, the State of Yucatan submitted a claim to the GCCF alleging
potential damage to its natural resources and environment, and
seeking to recover the cost of assessing the alleged damage.  BP
anticipates further claims from the Mexican federal government.

On October 18, 2012, before a Federal District Court located in
Mexico City, a class action complaint was filed against BPXP, BP
America Production Company, and other companies affiliated with
BP.  The plaintiffs, consisting of fishermen and other groups, are
seeking, among other things, compensatory damages for the class
members who allegedly suffered economic losses, as well as an
order requiring BP to remediate environmental damage resulting
from the Incident and to provide funding for the preservation of
the environment and to conduct environmental impact studies in the
Gulf of Mexico for the next 10 years.  The Plaintiffs have not yet
properly served the BP entities named as Defendants.

            Suits Alleging Clean Water Act Violations

Citizens groups have also filed either lawsuits or notices of
intent to file lawsuits seeking civil penalties and injunctive
relief under the Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes.
On June 16, 2011, the judge in the federal multi-district
litigation proceeding in New Orleans granted BP's motion to
dismiss a master complaint raising claims for injunctive relief
under various federal environmental statutes brought by various
citizens groups and others.  The judge did not, however, lift an
earlier stay on the underlying individual complaints raising those
claims for injunctive relief or otherwise apply his dismissal of
the master complaint to those individual complaints.  In addition,
a different set of environmental groups filed a motion to
reconsider dismissal of their Endangered Species Act claims on
July 14, 2011.  That motion remains pending.  On January 31, 2012,
the court, on motion by the Center for Biological Diversity,
entered final judgment on the basis of the June 16, 2011 order
with respect to two actions brought against BP by that plaintiff.
On February 2, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
notice of appeal of both actions.  Following oral argument, the
Court of Appeals ruled in BP's favour on January 9, 2013, in
virtually all respects, though it remanded the Center for
Biological Diversity's claim under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act to the district court.  On January 22,
2013, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a Petition for
Panel Rehearing in the Court of Appeals, which was denied on
February 4, 2013.

                Sub-Surface Pollution Liabilities

On March 1, 2012, the court in MDL 2179 issued a partial final
judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims by BP, Anadarko and
MOEX for additional insured coverage under insurance policies
issued to Transocean for the sub-surface pollution liabilities BP,
Anadarko and MOEX have incurred and will incur with respect to the
Macondo well oil release.  BP filed a notice of appeal from the
court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit and oral argument was conducted on December 3, 2012.  On
March 1, 2013, the appeals court reversed the district court's
judgment, rejecting the district court's ruling that the insurance
that BP is entitled to receive as an additional insured under the
Transocean insurance policies at issue is limited to the scope of
the indemnity in the drilling contract between BP and Transocean.

In addition, BP is aware that actions have been or may be brought
under the Qui Tam (whistle-blower) provisions of the False Claims
Act (FCA).  On December 17, 2012, the court ordered unsealed one
complaint that had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana by one individual under the FCA's
Qui Tam provisions.  The complaint alleged that BP and another
defendant had made false reports and certifications of the amount
of oil released into the Gulf of Mexico following the Incident.
On December 17, 2012, the DoJ filed with the court a notice that
the DoJ elected to decline to intervene in the action.

On April 21, 2011, BP announced an agreement with natural resource
trustees for the U.S. and five Gulf Coast states, providing for up
to $1 billion to be spent on early restoration projects to address
natural resource injuries resulting from the Incident.  Funding
for these projects will come from the $20-billion Trust fund.

                      Ecuadorian Claimants

A claim was commenced against BP by a group of claimants on
July 26, 2012, in Ecuador.  The majority of the claimants
represent local NGOs.  The claim alleges that through the Incident
and BP's response to it, BP violated the "rights of nature."  The
claim is not monetary but rather seeks injunctive relief.  Two
previous claims on identical grounds were previously dismissed at
an early stage by the Ecuadorian courts.  On December 3, 2012, the
Ecuadorian court of first instance dismissed the claim.  On
December 7, 2012, the claimants filed a timely notice of appeal to
the Ecuadorian court of second instance.  On February 28, 2013,
the court affirmed the dismissal by the lower court.

BP's potential liabilities resulting from threatened, pending and
potential future claims, lawsuits and enforcement actions relating
to the Incident, together with the potential cost of implementing
remedies sought in the various proceedings, cannot be fully
estimated at this time but they have had and are expected to have
a material adverse impact on the group's business, competitive
position, cash flows, prospects, liquidity, shareholder returns
and/or implementation of its strategic agenda, particularly in the
U.S.  These potential liabilities may continue to have a material
adverse effect on the group's results and financial condition.

BP p.l.c. -- http://www.bp.com/-- is the parent company of the BP
group of companies.  The company was incorporated in 1909 in
England and Wales and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom.
BP is one of the world's leading integrated oil and gas companies.


BP PLC: Has Paid Amounts Due to Alaska in Suit Over 2006 Oil Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All amounts due to the state of Alaska in connection with its
action related to oil leaks in 2006 were paid in November 2012,
according to BP p.l.c.'s March 6, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In March and August 2006, oil leaked from oil transit pipelines
operated by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) at the Prudhoe Bay
unit on the North Slope of Alaska.  On May 12, 2008, a BP p.l.c.
shareholder filed a consolidated complaint alleging violations of
federal securities law on behalf of a putative class of BP p.l.c.
shareholders against BP p.l.c., BPXA, BP America Inc., and four
officers of the companies, based on alleged misrepresentations
concerning the integrity of the Prudhoe Bay pipeline before its
shutdown on August 6, 2006.  On February 8, 2010, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals accepted BP's appeal from a decision of
the lower court granting in part and denying in part BP's motion
to dismiss the lawsuit.  On
June 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled in BP's favour that the
filing of a trust related agreement with the SEC containing
contractual obligations on the part of BP was not a
misrepresentation which violated federal securities laws. The BP
p.l.c. shareholder filed an amended complaint, in response to
which BP filed a new motion to dismiss, which was granted on March
14, 2012.  The plaintiff has appealed the court's dismissal of the
case, and the appeal is pending.

On March 31, 2009, the State of Alaska filed a complaint seeking
civil penalties and damages relating to these events.  The
complaint alleges that the two releases and BPXA's corrosion
management practices violated various statutory, contractual and
common law duties to the State, resulting in penalty liability,
damages for lost royalties and taxes, and liability for punitive
damages.  In December 2011, the State of Alaska and BPXA entered
into a Dispute Resolution Agreement concerning this matter that
resulted in arbitration of the amount of the State's lost royalty
income and payment by BPXA of the additional amount of $10 million
on account of other claims in the complaint.  Evidentiary hearings
in the arbitration occurred in May and June 2012, and an award was
issued by the arbitration panel in November 2012 in the
approximate amount of $245 million.  BPXA's working interest share
of that award is approximately $66 million.  All amounts due to
the State of Alaska in this matter were paid in November 2012.

BP p.l.c. -- http://www.bp.com/-- is the parent company of the BP
group of companies.  The company was incorporated in 1909 in
England and Wales and is headquartered in London, United Kingdom.
BP is one of the world's leading integrated oil and gas companies.


BETHLEHEM CONSTRUCTION: Beneficiary Faces Check Encashment Woes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Robbins, writing for The Wenatchee World, reports that
a class-action settlement money proved out of reach for Maria
Carmen Angel.

It was a big registered mail number, 16 digits long.  Maria passed
it to the clerk at the post office, and got an envelope in return.

The check inside had fewer digits, but it was enough: $23,047,
made out to Maria's former husband as part of a massive class-
action settlement.  It would go a long way toward fulfilling the
back child support he hadn't paid since their 2007 divorce.

The check came last October.  Six months later, amid a tangle of
immigration enforcement, family law, civil litigation and banking
policies, it still sits uncashed, and untouchable.

On Saturday, April 6, all that money is scheduled to disappear.

"It's there, but I can't reach it," Maria, a 45-year-old mother of
four, said Friday in her Wenatchee home.  "It just seems that
everything is so unfair."

Ruben Angel-Pureco, now 50, was hired by Bethlehem Construction of
Cashmere in 2004.  Over the next year and a half, he and hundreds
of other workers helped build the massive Sound Transit Central
Link Light Rail Project, assembling more than 2,500 concrete
segments to carry the new elevated train between Seattle and
SeaTac International Airport.

Bethlehem netted the work on a subcontract from Canada-based PCL
Construction Services, the light rail general contractor.  The
state Department of Labor and Industries classified the work as
"precast concrete" -- piecework requiring less skill than more
intensive on-site carpentry -- with a prevailing hourly wage of
$8.61.  Bethlehem paid its workers on the contract a few dollars
more, typically $9 to $12.

But the concrete segments included steel rebar, fabricated to fit
the segments together on site.  In light of this, on a request
from the Ironworkers Union, L&I overruled itself in 2007 and said
the Cashmere plant must pay its project workers at the same rates
as construction workers on the light rail job sites -- a far
higher scale.

The L&I finding and the inequity in pay led a group of former
Bethlehem laborers to sue in King County Superior Court in 2008.
In the settlement reached last May, PCL agreed to pay $3.7 million
to the 328 light rail concrete workers employed by Bethlehem
between 2005 and 2007.

A $23,047 check made out to Ruben Angel-Pureco, part of Bethlehem
Construction's $3.7 million settlement for underpaying workers
during the massive Sound Transit Elevated Light Rail Project.

The $23,047 was Ruben Angel-Pureco's calculated share.  Once the
check was cut on Oct. 8, it had to be cashed in 180 days.

But by the time Maria picked up the check, Ruben had been thrown
out of the country, and he was behind on his child support to the
tune of about $27,000.

Ruben came to Wenatchee from his native Michoac n in the late
1980s; Maria followed him in 1996.  Their 19-year marriage came
apart in 2006, after incidents of domestic violence.  Ruben
pleaded guilty that year to third-degree assault of a child, and
received a three-month jail sentence.

The criminal plea led to the revocation of his visa, and he was
deported back to Mexico in June 2007, one month after the divorce
was finalized.  For years after that, the family heard from him
only intermittently.  He never met any of his scheduled child
support payments, Maria said.

"I haven't asked Ruben for anything," Maria said, and then
laughed.  "I haven't had the chance."

Two of the couple's children are under 18 and still live with
Maria; their oldest daughter has kids of her own.  Maria first
took the Bethlehem check in October to the state Division of Child
Support, to see if it could be garnished to defray Ruben's back
payments.  She said after about two months, she was told the
agency could not help her.

DCS communications chief Adolfo Capestany said he couldn't discuss
specifics of the Angels' case, but any garnishment requires proper
legal notice to the parent owing child support.  With one party in
another country with no known address, serving notice --
especially within a limited time frame -- becomes complicated.

"In an example like that, it isn't as simple as somebody's got a
check and it's got that person's name on it, and the person owed
child support, so let's convert that check," Mr. Capestany said.

Maria cooks dinner at home in Wenatchee.  She and her former
husband have two adult and two minor children, and she has not
received any child support ordered by the court since her divorce
in 2007.  If the $23,000 Bethlehem Construction check is not
cashed by April 6, the money reverts to the King County court
where the settlement was approved.

In January, Maria -- who speaks limited English -- asked her
friend Alexandra Muro to help her call various lawyers for help.
Because she earned about $14,000 a year as a fruit warehouse
worker, she qualified for help from Chelan-Douglas County
Volunteer Attorney Services, a clearinghouse for lawyers doing pro
bono charitable work.

VAS director Ryan Feeney tried to recruit attorneys to Maria's
cause, but it was already February -- perhaps 60 days from the
check's expiration.  And someone still had to find Ruben and serve
due legal notice.

"All of the attorneys I talked to have full caseloads," Mr. Feeney
said.  "It would've required them to find the solution to a legal
problem that wasn't common."

Mr. Feeney worked with Maria's bank, which would not allow her to
deposit a check made out to someone else's name; and with the
check's issuing bank, which gave a similar response.

"Here is a lady that is poor, who really needs the money, and I
couldn't find help for her to get that money," Mr. Feeney said.
"And I felt pretty bad about that."

Calls to Schroeter Goldmark and Bender, the Seattle firm that
represented the Bethlehem workers, also proved fruitless.  After
all, without a garnishment, the money was rightfully Ruben's, not
Maria's.

"Obviously, our client is the person who's entitled to the wages,"
said Schroeter attorney Martin Garfinkel, whose firm was awarded
$1.7 million in fees and expenses on the case, "and if he has
other legal difficulties, that's something we're not aware of or
involved with."

In February, Ruben contacted the family.  He was in Ensenada, in
the Mexican state of Baja California, earning about $170 month on
the janitorial staff of a medical clinic.  He agreed to grant
Maria power of attorney if it would speed the check-cashing
process, but again, the banks refused.

At the beginning of March, with all other avenues exhausted, Maria
sent the check to Ruben, who promised to pay what was owed from
the windfall.

But Ruben told Maria his bank refused to accept the check.  The
amount was larger than the $10,000 ceiling set for such checks,
bank agents told him, and it was paid from a foreign corporate
account rather than a more common wire transfer or money order.

Bob Connelly, project manager with Bethlehem Construction, said
his company was unaware of the Angels' situation until contacted
by The Wenatchee World.  He confirmed that the check made out to
Ruben was still outstanding as of this week.

"Unfortunately, Bethlehem does not have control over the
situation," he said in an email, "and the rules of the court-
approved settlement control the funds."  He encouraged the Angels
to contact the lawyers in the class-action case.

If the check is still uncashed on April 6, Ruben's $23,047 reverts
to a residual fund.  One-quarter of it -- $5,761 -- will
automatically be turned over to the Legal Foundation of
Washington, a nonprofit agency that serves low-income clients.

What happens to the rest is up to King County Judge Jay V. White,
who approved the original settlement.  Mr. Garfinkel's firm wants
any residuals to go into trust with the Washington Department of
Revenue, allowing class members to file new claims to collect it.
PCL Construction Services, on the other hand, wants to collect any
leftover money for itself, Mr. Garfinkel said.

"It's getting close," said Maria's friend Alexandra Muro.  "The
check will expire officially on the sixth of April.  It's very
close, and it seems nobody cares."

Maria was laid off from her fruit warehouse job last month.  Since
last fall she's watched other families who earned Bethlehem
settlements fix up their houses or buy new vehicles.  She and her
kids had frugal hopes for the promised money -- a computer, a
vacation, some new clothing.

"It would be good if I could get the money, so I could use it in
what I need," she said.  ". . .  I want to get it, but I don't
think it will happen."


CLEAN HARBORS: Defends Suits Over Fuel Surcharges vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc., is defending its subsidiary against class
action lawsuits alleging it improperly assessed fuel surcharges,
according to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, in state court in Alabama alleging that Safety-Kleen Inc.
improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service
fees.  Safety-Kleen disputes the basis of the claims on numerous
grounds, including that Safety-Kleen has contracts with numerous
customers authorizing the assessment of such fees and that in
cases where no contract exists Safety-Kleen provides customers
with a document at the time of service reflecting the assessment
of the fee, followed by an invoice itemizing the fee.  It is
Safety-Kleen's position that it had the right to assess fuel
surcharges, that the customers consented to the charges and that
the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the customers when
presented with an invoice.  The lawsuit is still in its initial
stages of discovery.  The class related fact discovery must now be
completed by September 4, 2013, and a hearing on class
certification will be held in early to mid-2014.

In late June 2012, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by the
same law firm on behalf of a California-based customer.  The
lawsuit contends, under various state law theories, that Safety-
Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges and late payment
fees, and seeks certification of a class of California customers
only.  Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the
Alabama litigation.

In December 2012, a similar lawsuit was filed by the same law firm
on behalf of a Missouri-based customer which contends under
various state law theories that Safety-Kleen impermissibly
assessed fuel surcharges and seeks certification of a class of
Missouri customers only.  Safety-Kleen will assert the same
defenses as in the Alabama and California cases.

Clean Harbors says it is unable to ascertain the ultimate
aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with
respect to these matters as of December 31, 2012, and no reserve
has been recorded.

Clean Harbors, Inc. -- http://www.cleanharbors.com/-- was
incorporated in Massachusetts in 1980 and its principal office is
located in Norwell, Massachusetts.   Clean Harbors is a provider
of environmental, energy and industrial services throughout North
America.


CU BANCORP: Got $82,000 Settlement in Suit Over CMO Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
CU Bancorp disclosed in its March 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, that it received $82,000 in connection with a
settlement of a class action lawsuit over collateralized mortgage
obligation.

On January 17, 2012, the Company received a notice of class action
and proposed settlement regarding certain of its private issue CMO
securities.  According to the proposed class action, Merrill Lynch
has agreed to pay $315 million in cash for benefit of the class
action which also includes a significant number of securities.
The Company received $82,000 related to this settlement on this
security in 2012.  The proceeds were applied to reduce the
principal balance on the security.

Headquartered in Encino, California, CU Bancorp --
http://www.cunb.com/-- is a bank holding company for its bank
subsidiary, California United Bank.  The Bank was incorporated in
2004 in California and is authorized to engage in the general
commercial banking business.


DISH DBS: Class Action Suit Over Channel Bundling Has Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit related to channel bundling is now
concluded, according to DISH DBS Corporation's March 6, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The lawsuit also
names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter,
Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBCUniversal, Viacom, Fox
Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as
opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an
"a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009, the District Court
entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order.  The plaintiff
class sought rehearing en banc.  On October 31, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit issued an order vacating the previous June 3, 2011 order,
directing that a 3-judge panel be reconstituted, and denying the
plaintiff class' motion for rehearing.  On March 30, 2012, the
reconstituted panel of the Ninth Circuit again affirmed the
District Court's order.  On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff class
again filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on
May 4, 2012.  On August 2, 2012, the plaintiff class filed a
petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court, which
was denied on November 5, 2012.  The matter is now concluded.

DISH DBS Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is a Colorado
corporation headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.  DISH DBS is a
holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH
Network.  DISH DBS operates the DISH(R) branded direct broadcast
satellite pay-TV service.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Obtains Summary Judgment in Contract Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Phone Corp. and parent company Global Switching, Inc.
brought a class action on behalf of themselves and a putative
class for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Dun &
Bradstreet Corp. and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. arising from their
purchase of a D&B service, ScoreBuilder.

D&B filed a motion for summary judgment on these claims.

Senior District Judge I. Leo Glasser says it is beyond dispute
that the Plaintiffs contracted with D&B when they purchased
ScoreBuilder over the phone.  The Plaintiffs accepted that the
purchase e-mails provided the terms of the contract by performing
the contract under those terms, i.e. submitting trade references,
not objecting to the terms of the e-mail, and twice reordering
ScoreBuilder.  For this reason, the Court grants D&B's motion for
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.

Moreover, because the Court finds that parties entered into valid
contracts, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim for unjust
enrichment, Judge Glasser said.  The Court, hence, grants the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim.

This action is a reminder of the adage that "people who accept an
offer assume the risk of unread terms that may prove unwelcome,"
notes Judge Glasser.

The case is DOLLAR PHONE CORP., et al., Plaintiff, v. DUN &
BRADSTREET CORP., et al. Defendants, No. 09 Civ. 3645 (ILG) (SMG),
(E.D. N.Y.).

A copy of the District Court's April 5, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/CDlbHHfrom Leagle.com.


EHEALTH ONTARIO: Settles Bonus Class Action for C$6.7 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports EHealth Ontario will pay C$6.7 million
in bonuses to hundreds of workers after agreeing to settle a
lawsuit filed by the employees.

The eHealth workers launched a class-action suit last summer to
recover bonuses of about 7.8% they had been promised in 2011, but
were denied by the Liberal government.

Lawyers advised the provincial agency it would likely cost more to
fight the lawsuit because the workers all had written letters
promising them bonus payments.

The Superior Court of Justice already accepted the settlement of
the eHealth class action.

Health Minister Deb Matthews had told the eHealth board to review
the bonuses in light of the government's attempts to freeze public
sector wages for two years to fight an C$11.9 billion deficit.

Greg Reed, the CEO of eHealth, was forced to return an C$81,250
performance bonus last August after the employees launched their
lawsuit to get their promised bonuses.

Mr. Reed was brought in by the Liberals in 2010 when they cleaned
house at eHealth, after the auditor general found there was little
to show for the C$1 billion that had been spent to that point to
develop electronic health records.


EMI: Munger Tolles Takes Over as Defense Counsel in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that Mayer
Brown has been replaced by Munger, Tolles & Olson as counsel to
recording company EMI in an antitrust class action over digital
music.

In a declaration filed in court on April 2, Mayer Brown attorney
Jason Kirschner wrote that the switch was related to EMI's sale
last September to Universal Music Group.

UMG, which is also a defendant in the digital music litigation, is
represented by Munger Tolles.  After the acquisition, Kirschner
wrote that both companies wanted Munger Tolles to represent EMI.

Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan, overseeing
the case, approved the switch.

Asked about the change, Mayer Brown partner Richard Steuer, who
has been involved in the case since at least 2007, wrote in an
email that there was no further explanation for it.

Mayer Brown, with 20 offices around the globe and about 1,500
lawyers, is much bigger than Munger Tolles, with 175 lawyers
between its San Francisco and Los Angeles offices.  Both are well-
known defense firms with deep expertise in antitrust litigation.

Law firms are routinely replaced when their clients are bought by
competitors that then want to bring in their own counsel.

For Mayer Brown, the replacement means a lost opportunity to stay
involved in a major class action.  The case, filed in 2006,
alleges that the major music producers, through joint ventures,
conspired to fix the prices and sale terms of Internet music.

The case was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of music
purchasers.  Over the next several months, the parties are
scheduled to take depositions relating to class certification.

The case is In Re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District for the Southern District of New York, No. 06-md-01780.

For UMG and EMI: Glenn Pomerantz and Kelly Klaus.

For plaintiffs: Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson and Bonny Sweeney of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.


FORMOSA FOOD: Recalls 1,133 Pounds of Pork Jerky Product
--------------------------------------------------------
Formosa Food Company, Inc., a Hull, Iowa establishment is
recalling approximately 1,133 pounds of a pork jerky product
because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, wheat, which is
not declared on the label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 16-oz. individual packages of "Formosa Brand Pork Szu
     (Cooked Seasoned Dried Pork Product)"

The product bears the establishment number "EST. 2446" inside the
USDA mark of inspection on the label.  The product was produced on
various dates through November 29, 2012.  There is no expiration
date on the product.  The product was distributed via Internet and
direct sales nationwide.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/iLdYVb

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a label
review.  Wheat is a sub-ingredient in the soy sauce used to make
the product and is not listed on the final label.  FSIS and the
company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Plant Supervisor Jennifer Shih at (712) 439-1065.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.  For information on how to report a problem with a
meat, poultry or processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit
http://is.gd/vlfH9I


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Court Dismisses Claims in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted a motion to dismiss claims
in SCOTT MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GHIRARDELLI
CHOCOLATE COMPANY, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, No. C
12-04936 LB, (N.D. Cal.).

Scott Miller bought a package of "Ghirardelli(R) Chocolate Premium
Baking Chips - Classic White" and then -- on behalf of himself and
other consumers -- sued the Ghirardelli Chocolate Company,
complaining that Ghirardelli deceived customers into thinking that
this and four other products contained chocolate when they did not
contain chocolate, white chocolate, or cocoa derivatives and
instead were "artificial" or "imitation," in violation of United
States Food and Drug Administration and state regulations.  His
four claims assert violations of: (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.; (2) the False
Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (3)
California's common-law of fraud; and (4) the Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.

Ghirardelli argues that Miller lacks standing for the four
products he did not buy. Ghirardelli also moves to dismiss the
claim to the extent it rests on the "unlawful" prong of the UCL
Unfair Competition Law for three reasons: (A) to the extent that
it is predicated on a violation of the FDA 2002 "white chocolate"
regulation, 21 C.F.R. Section 163.124 (as incorporated into the
California Sherman Food, Drug & Cosmetic Law), the Sherman Law
adopted only the 1970 and 1992 FDA regulations and the Legislature
never voted on the 2002 "white chocolate" FDA regulation; (B) to
the extent that it is predicated on the FDA regulation on
"imitation" and "artificially flavored," 21 C.F.R. Section 101.3
(as incorporated into the Sherman Law), Plaintiff did not allege
that the product is nutritionally inferior or contains artificial
flavoring; and (c) to the extent that it is predicated on the
"common or usual name" regulation, 21 C.F.R. Section 102.5 (as
incorporated into the Sherman Law), Plaintiff did not allege a
violation of the regulation, and no "common or usual name" has
been established for the products at issue in this case.

"Plaintiff does not have standing for the products he did not
purchase, and the court grants the motion to dismiss only on that
basis and denies the motion on all other grounds," Judge Beeler
said.

A copy of the District Court's April 5, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/3D2EP5from Leagle.com.


HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS: Judge Says Specialist Needed to Review Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports that
the first step in untangling legal arguments surrounding Highmark
Inc.'s proposed settlement of a class-action antitrust lawsuit is
to figure out whether the settlement would benefit premium payers,
a federal judge decided on April 3.

"What's the value of the settlement?" U.S. District Judge Joy
Flowers Conti asked one of the insurer's lawyers during a status
conference in the federal courthouse, Downtown.  "You're giving
money to lawyers? That's what I'm seeing."

Judge Conti said she needed a specialist, most likely a health
care economist, to evaluate the proposed settlement and determine
its value.  She ordered Highmark's lawyers and the attorneys
representing premium payers to come up with a list of three
candidates by April 8 so she can appoint someone to work on that
analysis.

The proposed settlement is tangled in legal arguments because
attorneys representing premium payers want to withdraw their
support of the agreement, arguing it won't benefit people.
Highmark contends the agreement does not allow the plaintiffs to
withdraw their support for the proposal.

Margaret Zwisler, one of the attorneys representing Highmark, said
the settlement would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys up to $4.5
million and guarantee the Community Blue insurance plan would stay
on the market for at least two years.  Highmark would help
plaintiffs pursue an anti-trust claim against UPMC.

The class-action lawsuit grew out of a four-year legal battle
between West Penn Allegheny Health System, Highmark and UPMC.
West Penn in 2009 claimed that Highmark and UPMC conspired to
drive it out of business and kept insurers out of the area so
Highmark could charge higher premiums.

When a federal judge ruled that West Penn could not sue on behalf
of premium payers, Royal Mile Co., a Whitehall property management
company, filed a nearly identical complaint on their behalf.

Other lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit are Cole's
Wexford Hotel Inc. in Pine and an individual.

Scott Hare, an attorney for Royal Mile and the other plaintiffs,
said they supported the proposed settlement with Highmark based on
the belief that the insurer would provide cost savings for
consumers.

After both sides signed the proposal, Highmark held out its low-
cost Community Blue insurance plan to satisfy that part of the
agreement, even though the insurer was bringing it on the market,
he said.  Because of that, attorneys for the premium payers want
to take the case to trial.

Ms. Zwisler denied Mr. Hare's characterization of the
negotiations.

Regardless of who said what, the plaintiffs' lawyers no longer
believe the settlement benefits premium payers, Judge Conti said
-- the key factor for her decision to approve or reject the
proposal.

Judge Conti said it does not seem likely that Highmark would pull
Community Blue off the market within two years.

"Why would you put all this money in creating this product and
then just pull it off the market?" she asked.

Ms. Zwisler said Highmark might do that in order to get a long-
term contract with UPMC.

"That (settlement) stops us from making that agreement," she said.

The other half of West Penn's original complaint morphed into an
antitrust lawsuit in which West Penn claims UPMC tried to drive it
out of business.  UPMC counterclaims that West Penn and Highmark
have conspired against UPMC.

West Penn dropped its claims against Highmark because the insurer
is poised to buy the troubled health system.  The deal, if
approved by the state Insurance Department, would cost Highmark
more than $1 billion.


IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities
litigation remains pending, according to Immersion Corporation's
March 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted with leave to
amend on March 11, 2011.  The Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 29, 2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 1, 2011.  On December 16, 2011, the
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In May 2012, the plaintiff
filed his opening appeals brief.  On July 13, 2012, the Company
filed its response brief.  On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed
his reply.

Immersion Corporation -- http://www.immersion.com/-- is an
intellectual property and technology licensing company focused on
the creation, design, development and licensing of patented haptic
innovations and technologies that allow people to use their sense
of touch more fully when operating a wide variety of digital
devices.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


MANDA PACKING: Recalls 20,166 Pounds of Roast Beef Deli Meat
------------------------------------------------------------
Manda Packing Company, a Baker, Louisiana establishment, is
recalling approximately 20,166 pounds of cooked roast beef deli
meat due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

Various weights of the following products are subject to recall:

   * Manda Supreme Roast Beef
   * Four Star Cajun Roast Beef
   * Four Star Roast Beef
   * Cajun Prize Roast Beef
   * Manda Supreme Natural Roast Beef
   * Manda Natural Roast Beef
   * Manda New Orleans Style Roast Beef
   * Manda Whole Wet Pack Roast Beef

Each package has a "Sell by" date of May 13, 2013, and bears the
establishment number "EST. 8746A" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.  These products may have been sliced at retail delis,
and if so will not bear this packaging information.  The products
were packed on February 27, 2013, and shipped for further
distribution and to retail deli stores in Louisiana, Texas,
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Illinois, and Tennessee.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by The Tennessee Department of
Agriculture, who took an intact sample of cooked roast beef at a
retail establishment on April 5, 2013, which later confirmed
positive for Listeria monocytogenes.  FSIS and the Company have
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

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

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.
Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well
as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened
immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.  Individuals concerned about
an illness should contact a health care provider.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Josh Yarborough, Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, at
(225) 344-7636, ext. 55.

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


MEDICAL VISION: Referred to ASIC; Class Action on Hold
------------------------------------------------------
Vassil Malandris at Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports
that the Australian distributor of the controversial PIP breast
implants has been referred to ASIC.  Medical Vision Australia is
accused of transferring assets to a related entity before entering
voluntary administration.  A class action involving more than a
thousand women hinges on the outcome.

ABC's Leigh Sales reports that for hundreds of Australian women,
the decision to have breast augmentation turned into a painful
nightmare when the implants ruptured and leaked industrial grade
silicone into their bodies.

Insult was added to injury when women pursuing a class action were
told that the distributor of the faulty implants had gone into
voluntary liquidation and so the action was a waste of time.

Now liquidators have asked the corporate regulator to investigate
the company for possible illegality when it transferred assets to
another related entity.


MEDTRONIC INC: Sprint Fidelis-Related Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to Medtronic Inc.'s Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads.  On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages.  Pretrial proceedings are underway.
The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Medtronic Inc. is a large medical
technology company and is a Fortune 500 company.


MIAMI BEACH, FL: Police Officers File RICO Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Christina Veiga, writing for The Miami Herald, reports that Miami
Beach's former police chief, its union president and two former
police officers have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the
city engaged in a RICO Act "scheme to defraud" police officers out
of worker's compensation benefits.

Miami Beach City Attorney Jose Smith called the lawsuit "patently
frivolous, offensive, scandalous and just plain wrong."

The lawsuit, filed March 20 in Broward Circuit Court, claims that
Miami Beach officials worked in concert with Johns Eastern (its
worker's compensation service agent) and doctors to deny payments
to police officers who have suffered from heart disease or
hypertension while on the job.

Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are:

* Former Police Chief Carlos Noriega.

* Current Miami Beach Fraternal Order of Police President
   Sgt. Alejandro Bello.

* Charles Press, formerly a member of the department's
   command staff and current Key Biscayne Chief of Police

* Former officer George Lerra, whose rank when he last
   worked with the department was not immediately available.

The men all suffered heart issues while on the job, but weren't
paid the full benefits due to them under Florida's Heart Law, the
suit claims.  Since first responders work in high-stress jobs, the
Heart Law provides worker's compensation benefits to police
officers and fire fighters who suffer heart disease or
hypertension while on the job.

The suit further claims that the failure to pay out benefits was
"either designed, conditioned or condoned" by Miami Beach, along
with Johns Eastern, and the doctors who treated the officers.

"Instead of paying the impairment benefits, Defendant City of
Miami Beach decided to place its profits over the health, welfare
and well-being of the very same law-enforcement officers it relies
on," the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit also claims that Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act was violated because the officers were
mailed letters and brochures that claimed that their payments
would be made in a timely manner, but weren't.  The officers
received payments, but not the full amounts they were entitled to,
according to the suit.

Attorneys Edward Zebersky and Geoffrey Bichler are representing
the plaintiffs.

City Attorney Smith shot off a memo to city commissioners and
administrators in response to the suit.

"Simply put, this lawsuit is a farce," he wrote.

Mr. Smith wrote that Florida law "clearly mandates that all claims
for benefits must be made solely (through) the workers
compensation system and not in a class action suit in circuit
court."

The lawsuit, Mr. Smith goes on to write, "is without merit for
several other reasons.  At the appropriate time, the city and
Johns Eastern will seek significant sanctions against the police
officers involved and their attorneys."

In response to the memo, Mr. Zebersky had his own harsh words to
share.  He released a statement the next day, writing that
Mr. Smith's memo "never once" states that the officers are not
entitled to the benefits.

"Rather, the City attorney told the Mayor and Commissioners that
the claims are frivolous and a farce based on a matter of
procedure."

He went on to point to a Florida Supreme Court case, Aguilera v.
Interservices Inc., that Mr. Zebersky says makes the lawsuit
valid.

"So, the only farce is the lack of legal research that was
conducted by the City Attorney prior to issuing the memorandum to
the mayor and the commissioners."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Hears Threshold Issue in Concussion MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that in the first courtroom appearance in the multidistrict
litigation brought by former football players against the National
Football League over their concussive injuries, the judge heard
arguments on a threshold issue that will determine whether or not
the case will head toward trial.

The NFL argues that collective bargaining agreements govern the
dispute and the case is pre-empted under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act.  The players disagree.

There was no collective bargaining agreement before 1964 and there
was a six-year gap when players had no CBA between 1987 and 1993,
so the NFL's contention that the case is pre-empted due to the CBA
is hard to maintain for those years.  Ex-players who were active
during those periods are the most difficult for the NFL, Paul
Clement told a federal judge in Philadelphia on April 9 as he
argued on behalf of the league in its effort to have the case
dismissed.

"No question," he said to U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Clement characterized the case as one that boils down to a
workplace safety issue.  Thousands of professional football
players across the country have alleged that the NFL acted
negligently in its role as the administrating body for the sport
by failing to manage the safety of players while profiting from it
for decades.

Judge Brody looked for specificity from Mr. Clement about what
provision in the CBA would address the issue and trigger pre-
emption, which requires there to be a provision in the CBA that
the court is called upon to interpret.  The "collective bargaining
agreements are silent with respect to latent injuries," said David
Frederick, who represented the players, to the court.

Mr. Clement noted that his briefs had pointed the court to several
cases that found a widespread discussion of player health and
safety in CBAs to be sufficient.  "The thing that concerns me, Mr.
Clement, is that you say, 'It talks about it all over,'" Judge
Brody said, referring to the way Clement described the football
CBAs as addressing player health.

"That's the problem," she said.  "It seems to me that talking
about it all over is not what Kline says," Judge Brody said,
referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's
2004 case in Kline v. Security Guards, which held that a claim
made by employees against their employer for electronic
surveillance of them was not pre-empted under Section 301 because
that behavior wasn't specifically addressed in the CBA.  At the
start of the argument, Brody confirmed that each lawyer agreed
that Third Circuit law would apply to the case.

"Kline says it's got to be relatively specific and the real issue
is how specific it has to be . . . and that's what I will have to
wrestle with," Judge Brody said.

For most of the roughly 40 minutes that Judge Brody presided,
Messrs. Clement and Frederick stood side-by-side in blue ties,
each behind a wooden lectern.

"This is a somewhat unconventional argument," Frederick said.

"This is not the Supreme Court," Brody said.

Both Mr. Frederick, who has served as the assistant to the
solicitor general, and Mr. Clement, a former solicitor general,
appear frequently before the high court.

In what was, by all accounts, a very hot room, Judge Brody
requested that anyone wearing a jacket to remove it.  "I don't
want anyone to have problems," Judge Brody said.  "Please take off
your ties and jackets. I don't want anyone to faint."

Mr. Frederick shed his coat; Mr. Clement kept his on.  He did not
faint.

Mr. Clement argued that the players' suit against the NFL was a
way to reach beyond the individual teams, where, he implied, the
actual responsibility for ordering players to return to a game
after sustaining an injury lay.  If the suit had been brought
against the teams, they would have certainly been pre-empted by
Section 301.

The individual teams have nothing to do with it, Mr. Frederick
answered.  The NFL was in the unique position of acting as
superintendent of the game and had access to information about
injuries across all of the teams, but chose not to distribute that
information or amend its rules, thereby breaching its duty of
care.

"I will rule when I sort this whole thing out for myself," Judge
Brody said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces NLRB Complaint Related to "Monjazeb" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc. is facing a complaint filed by the National
Labor Relations Board alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement's class action prohibition in connection with the class
action lawsuit brought by Sheila Monjazeb violates employees'
rights to engage in concerted activity, according to the Company's
March 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 26, 2013.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC.  On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation 1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and 4) failing
to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts.  On
October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel
Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the Company's
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class action in
that case.  The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not
represent employees who are subject to the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action
to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and
July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement).

Ms. Monjazeb filed a demand for arbitration as a class action,
which is prohibited under the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.  In
response to Ms. Monjazeb's demand for arbitration as a class
action, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) referred the
resolution of such request back to the arbitrator.  The Company
filed a motion to stay the decision of the AAA pending a ruling by
the trial court; the trial court determined that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable due to a recent California case.  The
Company asserted that the trial court does not have jurisdiction
to change its earlier determination of the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement and have appealed the court's decision.  In
addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a
complaint alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement's
class action prohibition violates employees' rights to engage in
concerted activity, which was set for hearing in Los Angeles on
March 18, 2013.

The Company says it will continue to vigorously defend its
interests in these matters.  Currently, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these
matters.  The Company will continue to evaluate these matters
based on subsequent events, new information and future
circumstances.

Neiman Marcus, Inc. is a luxury retailer conducting integrated
store and on-line operations principally under the Neiman Marcus
and Bergdorf Goodman brand names.  The Company is a Delaware
corporation based in Dallas, Texas.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Filed Amended Complaint in March
----------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed an
amended complaint in March 2013, according to Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc.'s March 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, Orrstown Bank and certain
current and former directors and executive officers (collectively,
the "Defendants").  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010, and its Prospectus Supplement
dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period
of March 24, 2010, through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class
certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees
and equitable or injunctive relief.  Under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012.  SEPTA
was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff
on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012, to file an amended
complaint, and the Defendants until December 7, 2012, to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  SEPTA's opposition to
the Defendants' motion to dismiss was originally due January 11,
2013, and the Defendants' reply brief in further support of its
motion to dismiss was originally due on January 25, 2013.  Under
the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case are
stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.  The
September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss
were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address
discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification.  On
October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the
parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint
time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses.  On
October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its
September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file
its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013, or otherwise
advise the Court of circumstances that require a further
enlargement of time.  On January 14, 2013, the Court granted
SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an
amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, and
the underwriters involved in the Company's March 2010 public
offering of common stock.  In addition, among other things, the
amended complaint extends the purported class period to March 15,
2010, through April 5, 2012, related to certain claims.

The Defendants believe that the allegations in SEPTA's complaint
are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against those
claims.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.orrstown.com/-- a
Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for Orrstown
Bank.  The Company's executive offices are located in
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.


PALL CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pall Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's March 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2013.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain members of its management team alleging violations of
the federal securities laws relating to the Company's
understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of
its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods.  These
lawsuits were filed between August 14, 2007, and October 11, 2007,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re Pall Corp," No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.)
(JS) (ARL), appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that the lead
plaintiff file a consolidated amended complaint.  The lead
plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on August 4,
2008.  The lead plaintiff sought to act as representative for a
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock between
April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007, inclusive.  The consolidated
amended complaint named the Company, its former chief executive
officer and current chief financial officer as defendants and
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  It alleged that the defendants violated
these provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading public statements about the
Company's financial results and financial statements, including
the Company's income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal
controls and accounting practices.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  The Company
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September
19, 2008, and filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on December 2, 2008.
By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated
amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint.  On
October 9, 2009, the Company moved for certification for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by
Memorandum and Order entered November 25, 2009. Discovery resumed
during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011.

During fiscal year 2012, the Company reached an agreement with the
lead plaintiff to settle the consolidated putative securities
class-action lawsuit.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all
individual defendants do not admit any liability and will receive
a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in
the litigation, in exchange for the payment of an aggregate of
$22,500,000.  Of the monetary payment to be made on behalf of the
Company and the individual defendants, substantially all will be
funded from insurance proceeds. On August 20, 2012, the Court
preliminarily approved the class action settlement and scheduled a
fairness hearing for December 14, 2012, at which time it will
decide whether to approve the final settlement.

On December 14, 2012, the Company and the lead plaintiff presented
a proposed settlement agreement to the Court.  The Court deferred
its approval of the settlement pending the resolution of an
objection brought by two class action members to the plaintiffs'
attorney fees under the proposed settlement.

Pall Corporation, a New York corporation incorporated in July
1946, including its subsidiaries, is a supplier of filtration,
separation and purification technologies, principally made by the
Company using its engineering capability and fluid management
expertise, proprietary filter media, and other fluid clarification
and separations equipment for the removal of solid, liquid and
gaseous contaminants from a wide variety of liquids and gases.


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

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/6ZjvH5and http://is.gd/HHlaRO,in
addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry
products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been
recalled.

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

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Hayden Mercantile           Hayden, Colorado
    Family Market               Naturita, Colorado
    Clark's Market              Norwood, Colorado
    Select Super Market         Oak Creek, Colorado
    Sweetbay                    Cape Coral, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Largo, Florida
    Sweetbay                    New Port Richey, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Odessa, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Plant City, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Seffner, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Tampa, Florida
    Sweetbay                    Temple Terrace, Florida
    Jubilee Market              Ashton, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Blackfoot, Idaho
    Paul's Market               Boise, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Buhl, Idaho
    Stokes                      Burley, Idaho
    Paul's Market               Caldwell, Idaho
    Foodtown                    Challis, Idaho
    The Village Square          Challis, Idaho
    Broulim's                   Driggs, Idaho
    Camas Creek Country Store   Fairfield, Idaho
    Ridley'sv                   Gooding, Idaho
    Chappel's Market            Hagerman, Idaho
    Paul's Market               Homedale, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Jerome, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Kimberly, Idaho
    Paul's Market               Kuna, Idaho
    Ivie's Market               Mackay, Idaho
    Thomas Market               Malad City, Idaho
    Logan's Market              Marsing, Idaho
    Paul's Market               McCall, Idaho
    Ridley's                    McCall, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Middleton, Idaho
    Broulim's                   Montpelier, Idaho
    Paul's Market               Nampa, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Pocatello, Idaho
    Stokes                      Preston, Idaho
    Broulim's                   Rexburg, Idaho
    Broulim's                   Rigby, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Rupert, Idaho
    Saveway Market              Salmon, Idaho
    Broulim's                   Shelley, Idaho
    Broulim's                   Soda Springs, Idaho
    Foodtown                    Soda Springs, Idaho
    Broulim's                   St. Anthony, Idaho
    Ridley's                    Weiser, Idaho
    Simerly's                   Wendell, Idaho
    Woodman's Food Market       Aurora, Illinois
    Woodman's Food Market       Carpentersville, Illinois
    Woodman's Food Market       Rockford, Illinois
    Food Pride                  Audubon, Iowa
    Bender's Foods              Bellevue, Iowa
    Keith's Foods               Bloomfield, Iowa
    Tom's Market & Meats        Burlington, Iowa
    Supervalu                   Colfax, Iowa
    Super Saver                 Council Bluffs, Iowa
    Bender's Foods              Denver, Iowa
    Save A Lot                  Des Moines, Iowa
    Hometown Market             Earlham, Iowa
    North Scott Foods           Eldridge, Iowa
    Bill's Family Foods         Forest City, Iowa
    Bill's Family Foods         Garner, Iowa
    Thriftway                   Glenwood, Iowa
    Bender's Foods              Guttenberg, Iowa
    Super Foods                 Logan, Iowa
    Foodland                    Missouri Valley, Iowa
    Gary's Foods                Mount Vernon, Iowa
    Pickle Barrel Market        Treynor, Iowa
    Williamsburg Foods          Williamsburg, Iowa
    Foodland                    Woodbine, Iowa
    Zey's Market                Abilene, Kansas
    Shurfine Foods              Atchison, Kansas
    Food Mart                   Belleville, Kansas
    Hoovers Stores              Burlington, Kansas
    Mize's Food Store           Clearwater, Kansas
    Hen House                   Fairway, Kansas
    IGA                         Fort Scott, Kansas
    Hometown Market             Hillsboro, Kansas
    Charles Ball Market         241 S 18th St., Kansas City, KS
    Charles Ball Market         4601 Parallel, Kansas City, KS
    Happy Foods                 Leavenworth Rd., Kansas City, KS
    Happy Foods                 6700 Kaw Drive, Kansas City, KS
    Hen House                   Kansas City, Kansas
    Sun Fresh                   Kansas City, Kansas
    Hillcrest Foods             Lawrence, Kansas
    Hen House                   Leawood, Kansas
    Hen House                   Lenexa, Kansas
    Foodline                    Lyons, Kansas
    Hen House                   Merriam, Kansas
    Food Fair                   Mound City, Kansas
    Hen House                   Olathe, Kansas
    Hen House                   College Blvd., Overland Park, KS
    Hen House                   West 135th, Overland Park, KS
    Hen House                   W 83rd St., Prairie Village, KS
    Hen House                   Mission Rd., Prairie Village, KS
    Klema Market                Russell, Kansas
    IGA                         Topeka, Kansas
    Tilton's Market             Topeka, Kansas
    Leeker's Family Foods       Valley Center, Kansas
    Country Market              Westmoreland, Kansas
    Checkers                    Wichita, Kansas
    Farmer's Market             Wichita, Kansas
    Leeker's Family Foods       Wichita, Kansas
    Cash Saver                  Winfield, Kansas
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Barbourville, Kentucky
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Pikeville, Kentucky
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Prestonsburg, Kentucky
    Family Fare                 Albion, Michigan
    Village Market Food Center  Allegan, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Allendale, Michigan
    Neiman's Family Market      Alpena, Michigan
    Mcdonald's Food & Fam. Ctr. Bad Axe, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Battle Creek, Michigan
    Leppink's Food Center       Belding, Michigan
    Harding's Market            Bridgman, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Brighton, Michigan
    Value Center Marketplace    Clinton Township, Michigan
    Greenfield Super Market     Detroit, Michigan
    King Cole Foods             Detroit, Michigan
    Riverside Market            Durand, Michigan
    Heartland Marketplace       Farmington, Michigan
    Carrow's Super Market       Farwell, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                18005 Silver Pkwy., Fenton, MI
    VG's Grocery                1390 N Leroy, Fenton, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Flint, Michigan
    Shop - N - Save Food Center Fremont, Michigan
    D&W Fresh Market            Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Neiman's Family Market      Hamilton, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Harrison, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Hastings, Michigan
    Glory Supermarket           Highland Park, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Holland, Michigan
    Leppink's Food Center       Howard City, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Howell, Michigan
    Harding's Market            2626 E Main St., Kalamazoo, MI
    Harding's Market            1000 E Cork St., Kalamazoo, MI
    Harding's Market            412 Howard St., Kalamazoo, MI
    Town and Country Market     Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Hollywood Super Market      Madison Heights, Michigan
    Super One                   Marquette, Michigan
    Family Fare                 Marshall, Michigan
    Wingert's Fd & Variety Ctr. Mayville, Michigan
    Glen's                      Mio, Michigan
    Riverside Market            Montrose, Michigan
    Super One                   Negaunee, Michigan
    Martin's Super Markets      Niles, Michigan
    Bryan's Market              North Branch, Michigan
    Harding's Market            Oshtemo, Michigan
    Oleson's Foods              Petoskey, Michigan
    Harding's Market            Plainwell, Michigan
    VG's Grocery                Pontiac, Michigan
    Hollywood Super Market      Rochester Hills, Michigan
    Shop-Rite                   Vassar, Michigan
    Value Fresh Marketplace     Warren, Michigan
    Heartland Marketplace       Westland, Michigan
    Vinckier Foods              Yale, Michigan
    County Market               Alexandria, Minnesota
    Food Fair                   Alexandria, Minnesota
    County Market               Andover, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Andover, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Apple Valley, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Apple Valley, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Austin, Minnesota
    Super One                   Baxter, Minnesota
    Lueken's Village Foods      Paul Bunyan Dr. NW, Bemidji, MN
    Lueken's Village Foods      Washington Ave. S., Bemidji, MN
    Marketplace Foods           Bemidji, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Blaine, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Bloomington, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
    Byron Marketplace           Byron, Minnesota
    Byerly's                    Chanhassen, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Chanhassen, Minnesota
    Brink's Market              Chisago City, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Circle Pines, Minnesota
    Super One                   Cloquet, Minnesota
    Marketplace Foods           Cokato, Minnesota
    Jensen's Foods              Coon Rapids, Minnesota
    Hugo's                      Crookston, Minnesota
    Northern Star Co-op         Deer River, Minnesota
    Super One                   1316 W Arrowhead Rd., Duluth, MN
    Super One                   5928 E Superior St., Duluth, MN
    Super One                   Burning Tree Road, Duluth, MN
    Super One                   5300 Bristol St., Duluth, MN
    Von Hanson's                2141 Cliff Rd., Eagan, MN
    Von Hanson's                1320 Duckwood Dr., Eagan, MN
    Hugo's                      East Grand Forks, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Edina, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Faribault, Minnesota
    Family Fresh Market         Farmington, Minnesota
    Food Pride                  Glenwood, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Hugo, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Hutchinson, Minnesota
    Fiesta Foods                Lake City, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Mankato, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Moorhead, Minnesota
    Hornbacher's                Moorhead, Minnesota
    Sunmart                     Moorhead, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             New Ulm, Minnesota
    County Market               North Branch, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                North Oaks, Minnesota
    Osseo Meats                 Osseo, Minnesota
    Supervalu                   Pequot Lakes, Minnesota
    Family Market               Pine River, Minnesota
    Village Market              Prior Lake, Minnesota
    Tersteeg's                  Redwood Falls, Minnesota
    Hyvee                       Rochester, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Rogers, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Savage, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Marketplace Foods           St. Michael, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   St. Paul, Minnesota
    Cub Foods                   Stillwater, Minnesota
    Hugo's                      Thief River Falls, Minnesota
    Super One                   Thief River Falls, Minnesota
    Festival Foods              Vadnais Heights, Minnesota
    Fresh Season's Market       Victoria, Minnesota
    Super One                   501 4th St. N, Virginia, MN
    Super One                   1111 17th St. S, Virginia, MN
    Mackenthun's Foods          Waconia, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Waitepark, Minnesota
    Cash Wise Foods             Willmar, Minnesota
    Midtown Foods               Winona, Minnesota
    Von Hanson's                Woodbury, Minnesota
    Bruce's Foods               Wyoming, Minnesota
    Food Fair                   Appleton City, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Ashland, Missouri
    Quick 'N' Tasty Foods       Belton, Missouri
    Snoddy's Market             Boonville, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Brunswick, Missouri
    Dollar Junction             Camdenton, Missouri
    Prenger Foods               Centralia, Missouri
    Prenger's Extreme Mart      Centralia, Missouri
    Piggly Wiggly               Chillicothe, Missouri
    Eastgate Foods              Columbia, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Business Loop 70, Columbia, MO
    Moser's Discount Foods      4808 Rangeline St., Columbia, MO
    Patricia's                  Columbia, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Concordia, Missouri
    Fairway Groceries           Eugene, Missouri
    John's Super                Excelsior Springs, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Fulton, Missouri
    Quik Chek                   Glasgow, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Grain Valley, Missouri
    C & S Grocers               Harrisburg, Missouri
    Village Market              Hermann, Missouri
    5-Star Supermarket          Hermitage, Missouri
    Piggly Wiggly               Higginsville, Missouri
    Lloyd's Foods               Holden, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Holts Summit, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Huntsville, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Independence, Missouri
    Sun Fresh                   E 24 Highway, Independence, MO
    Sun Fresh                   So. Sterling, Independence, MO
    Moser's Discount Foods      Jefferson City, Missouri
    Schulte's Fresh Foods       Jefferson City, Missouri
    Brookside Marketplace       Kansas City, Missouri
    C & C Produce               Kansas City, Missouri
    Cash & Carry                Kansas City, Missouri
    Cosentino's Market          Kansas City, Missouri
    Festival Foods              Kansas City, Missouri
    Happy Foods                 Kansas City, Missouri
    Hen House                   Kansas City, Missouri
    Leon's United Super         Kansas City, Missouri
    Snyder's Super Market       Kansas City, Missouri
    Sun Fresh                   E 50th Terrace, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   Nw Prairie Vw Rd, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   11212 Holmes, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   4001 Mill St., Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   N Oak Trafficway, Kansas City, MO
    Sun Fresh                   N.E. Vivion Rd., Kansas City, MO
    Tonys Food Mart             Kansas City, Missouri
    John's Super                Kearney, Missouri
    Dave's Country Market       Lexington, Missouri
    Prenger's Foods             Macon, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Marshall, Missouri
    Bratcher's Market           Moberly, Missouri
    Bratcher's Market           Montgomery City, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Oak Grove, Missouri
    Patricia's                  Odessa, Missouri
    5-Star Supermarket          Osceola, Missouri
    Hy-Klas Foods               Plattsburg, Missouri
    Hy Klas Foods               Polo, Missouri
    Food Fair                   Rich Hill, Missouri
    Red X                       Riverside, Missouri
    Hometown Foods              Saint Joseph, Missouri
    Ray's                       Saint Joseph, Missouri
    Ray's                       Savannah, Missouri
    Cash Saver                  Sedalia, Missouri
    Hometown Foods              St. Joseph, Missouri
    Roger's                     St. Joseph, Missouri
    The Market                  Sweet Springs, Missouri
    Dave's Country Market       Tipton, Missouri
    Moser's Discount Foods      Warrenton, Missouri
    Newman's Foods              Warsaw, Missouri
    IGA                         Weston, Missouri
    Dave's Country Market       Windsor, Missouri
    Town & Country Foods        Bozeman, Montana
    Super Foods                 Aurora, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 Columbus, Nebraska
    Super Foods                 Geneva, Nebraska
    Skagway                     W State St., Grand Island, NE
    Skagway                     1607 S Locust, Grand Island, NE
    Skagway                     358 N. Pine, Grand Island, NE
    Super Saver                 Grand Island, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               Hastings, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               1709 Washington, Lincoln, NE
    Russ's Market               6300 Havelock, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               2840 South 70M, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               4400 S 33rd St., Lincoln, NE
    Russ's Market               130 North 66th, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Russ's Market               1550 S Coddington, Lincoln, NE
    Save Best                   Lincoln, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 5440 South 56, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 2525 Pine Lake Road, Lincoln, NE
    Super Saver                 233 North 48th, Lincoln, Nebraska
    Super Saver                 Cornhusker Highway, Lincoln, NE
    Super Saver                 840 Fallbrook Blvd., Lincoln, NE
    Super Saver                 Omaha, Nebraska
    Wahoo Super                 Wahoo, Nebraska
    Super Foods                 Weeping Water, Nebraska
    Super Foods                 Wymore, Nebraska
    Foodtown                    Battle Mountain, Nevada
    Ridley's                    Ely, Nevada
    Lin's                       Overton, Nevada
    Khoury's Market Place       Spring Creek, Nevada
    Khoury's Market Place       Winnemucca, Nevada
    Uptown Market               Winnemucca, Nevada
    Cash Wise Foods             Bismarck, North Dakota
    Dan's Supermarket           3101 N. 11th Street, Bismarck, ND
    Dan's Supermarket           S. Washington St., Bismarck, ND
    Leever's Foods              Devils Lake, North Dakota
    Cash Wise Foods             Fargo, North Dakota
    Hornbacher's                South University Drive, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                1532 32nd Ave. South, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                4101 13th Ave. South, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                2510 Broadway, Fargo, ND
    Hornbacher's                4151 45th St. South, Fargo, ND
    Hugo's                      Grafton, North Dakota
    Hugo's                      S Columbia Rd., Grand Forks, ND
    Hugo's                      1750 32nd Ave. S, Grand Forks, ND
    Hugo's                      1925 13th Ave. N, Grand Forks, ND
    Super One                   Grand Forks, North Dakota
    Hugo's                      Jamestown, North Dakota
    Dan's Supermarket           Mandan, North Dakota
    Econo Foods                 Wahpeton, North Dakota
    Sunmart                     West Fargo, North Dakota
    Foodtown                    Elgin, Oregon
    Halfway Mercantile          Halfway, Oregon
    Sherm's Thunderbird Market  Klamath Falls, Oregon
    M & W Market                Nyssa, Oregon
    Red Apple Store             Ontario, Oregon
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Rogersville, Tennessee
    Foodtown                    Beaver, Utah
    Dick's                      Bountiful, Utah
    Winegar's                   Bountiful, Utah
    Kent's Market               Brigham City, Utah
    Lin's                       Cedar City, Utah
    Dick's                      Centerville, Utah
    Kent's Market               Clearfield, Utah
    Winegar's                   Clearfield, Utah
    Macey's                     Clinton, Utah
    Valley market               Eden, Utah
    Foodtown                    Fillmore, Utah
    Soelberg's                  Grantsville, Utah
    Days Market                 Heber City, Utah
    Workmen's Market            Helper, Utah
    Kohler's                    Highland, Utah
    Lin's                       Hurricane, Utah
    Ridley's                    Hyrum, Utah
    Foodtown                    Kamas, Utah
    Glazier's                   Kanab, Utah
    Reams                       2600 W 4700 South, Kearns, Utah
    Reams                       3665 West 6200 So, Kearns, Utah
    Farmer's Market             Laverkin, Utah
    Kohler's                    Lehi, Utah
    Macey's                     Lehi, Utah
    Lee's Marketplace           Logan, Utah
    Reams                       Magna, Utah
    Ridley's                    Morgan, Utah
    Macey's                     Ogden, Utah
    Wangsgard's Market          Ogden, Utah
    Macey's                     Orem, Utah
    Ridley's                    1585 North State St., Orem, Utah
    Ridley's                    25 West Center St., Orem, Utah
    The Market at Park City     Park City, Utah
    Payson market               Payson, Utah
    Macey's                     Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Macey's                     Providence, Utah
    Macey's                     Provo, Utah
    Foodtown                    Riverton, Utah
    Jubilee Foods               Roosevelt, Utah
    Stewart's Market Place      Roosevelt, Utah
    Kent's Market               Roy, Utah
    Winegar's                   Roy, Utah
    Stokes                      Salem, Utah
    Dan's                       E 33rd So, Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dan's                       E 70th South, Salt Lake City, UT
    Dan's                       So Foothill Blvd, Salt Lake City
    Dan's                       S Wasatch Blvd., Salt Lake City
    Rancho Market               Salt Lake City, Utah
    Reams                       E 70th So, Salt Lake City, Utah
    Reams                       So State, Salt Lake City, Utah
    Macey's                     Sandy, Utah
    Reams                       10650 So 7th East, Sandy, Utah
    Reams                       So. Highland Dr., Sandy, Utah
    Lee's Marketplace           Smithfield, Utah
    Macey's                     Spanish Fork, Utah
    Lin's                       St George, Utah
    Soelberg's                  Stansbury Park, Utah
    Macey's                     Tooele, Utah
    Kent's Market               Tremonton, Utah
    Ridley's                    Tremonton, Utah
    Jubilee Foods               Vernal, Utah
    Macey's                     West Jordan, Utah
    Reams                       West Jordan, Utah
    Jubilee Foods               West Valley City, Utah
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Abingdon, VA
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Grundy, VA
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Hillsville, Virginia
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Lynchburg, Virginia
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Vinton, Virginia
    Super Dollar Discount Foods Wytheville, Virginia
    Dick's Fresh Market         Amery, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Appleton, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Ashland, Wisconsin
    Nilssen's Foods             Baldwin, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Beloit, Wisconsin
    Gordy's Food & Liquor       Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
    IGA                         Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
    County Market               Eau Claire, Wisconsin
    Nilssen's Foods             Ellsworth, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Family Fresh Foods          Hudson, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Hurley, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Janesville, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Kenosha, Wisconsin
    County Market               Ladysmith, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Madison, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
    Family Fresh Foods          New Richmond, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Oak Creek, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Onalaska, Wisconsin
    Dick's Fresh Market         Osceola, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Park Falls, Wisconsin
    IGA                         Prescott, Wisconsin
    Marketplace Foods           Rice Lake, Wisconsin
    Pik N Save                  Ripon, Wisconsin
    Family Fresh Foods          River Falls, Wisconsin
    Econo Foods                 Somerset, Wisconsin
    Woodman's Food Market       Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
    Super One                   Superior, Wisconsin
    Broulim's                   Afton, Wyoming
    Whole Grover                Jackson, Wyoming
    Ridley's                    Kemmerer, Wyoming
    Ridley's                    Pinedale, Wyoming
    Valley Market               Thayne, Wyoming


ROYAL BANK: UK Shareholders Continue to Pursue Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that there
may be no more glaring example of the shifting terrain for
securities litigation than the case against the Royal Bank of
Scotland.  Back in January 2011, RBS was one of the early
beneficiaries of the U.S. Supreme Court's bar on shareholder suits
against foreign defendants.  U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts of
Manhattan dismissed most of a class action claiming that the bank
misled investors about its subprime exposure and the success of
its ABN Amro deal.  The judge tossed the few remaining claims last
September, erasing any chance that RBS would be held liable to
shareholders in U.S. courts.  The American plaintiffs' firms that
sued RBS and the U.S. pension fund clients that vied to lead the
litigation were plumb out of options.

But their counterparts in the United Kingdom pressed on.
Shareholder litigation has been a relative rarity in England, not
least because of the loser-pays rule, said London lawyer Robin
Ellison of Pinsent Masons, who counsels pension funds, insurance
companies and other institutional investors on their litigation
rights.  But in recent years, as England has relaxed old
prohibitions on outside investment in litigation, insurers have
begun issuing so-called After the Event policies, taking over the
risk that plaintiffs will have to pay defendants' fees if they
lose.  That innovation, Ellison told me, has made shareholder
litigation a realistic prospect in the UK.  His group, the
Institutional Investors Tort Recovery Association, evaluates about
20 or 30 potential claims a year, Ellison said, and follows up
with a suit in about one-third of the cases.  Mr. Ellison
informally refers to shareholder suits in the UK as class actions,
but they're really not class actions in the U.S. sense.  The cases
are akin to American mass tort or consolidated litigation.

Two shareholder groups recently initiated actions against RBS in
the UK, claiming that the bank's prospectus for a $23 billion
offering in April 2008 contained material misstatements.  One of
the groups consists of British and international institutional
investors represented by Stewarts, which filed a one-page claim on
their behalf at London's High Court.  The second group filed an
actual complaint against RBS and several board members at the High
Court on April 3.  That group, which is represented by Bird & Bird
and includes about 12,000 individual RBS shareholders and more
than 100 institutional investors, has said that its claims could
top 4 billion pounds.  Mr. Ellison, who said he has clients
"across the board in this litigation," told me that these are the
biggest claims in UK history.

Not much is publicly known about the Stewarts group, and lead
counsel Clive Zietman didn't return Thomson Reuters' call.  The
Bird & Bird group, which has a Web site, has been somewhat more
transparent, announcing that its litigation would be funded
through subscriptions by shareholders who joined the case -- with
any eventual recovery apportioned the same way.  The second group,
known as Royal Bank of Scotland Shareholders Action Group, also
made a public announcement in January when it obtained insurance
to cover RBS's legal fees in the event that it loses the case.
Given the sky-high cost of litigating in London, that policy must
be for tens of millions of dollars.  A representative of the group
declined to comment.

So where does this leave American securities class action lawyers?
According to Mr. Ellison, the UK pension fund lawyer, a U.S. firm
is involved in the institutional investor case against RBS, but he
wouldn't give its name.  "We've previously seen the Delaware
shareholder firm Grant & Eisenhofer venture overseas, to the
Netherlands, to reach a settlement with Royal Dutch Shell on
behalf of European institutional investors.  I called the firm to
see if it's involved in the RBS case but didn't hear back.
Perhaps the future of securities litigation for American lawyers
is going to involve getting to know the securities laws of Canada,
Holland and England as well as those of the United States,"
Ms. Frankel said.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Awaits Result of Mediation in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Solta Medical, Inc. awaits the results of a private mediation
scheduled on March 2013, according to the Company's March 6, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On May 3, 2012, Solta and Reliant Technologies Inc., which the
Company acquired in December 2008, were served with a class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that Reliant caused
unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiff in
2008, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
TCPA.  The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the putative class,
seeks the greater of actual damages or statutory damages in the
amount of $500 per violation, treble damages for any willful
violations, and injunctive relief.  The parties have exchanged
initial disclosures and discovery has commenced.  On January 24,
2013, the Court granted the parties' stipulated request to
continue upcoming case deadlines in light of the parties'
agreement to participate in private mediation scheduled on March
2013.

The Company says it is unable to reasonably estimate a range of
loss at this time and intends to vigorously defend this action.

Headquartered in Hayward, California, Solta Medical, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and
markets energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic
applications.  The Company was incorporated in California in 1996
as Thermage, Inc., and reincorporated in Delaware in 2001.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Solta Medical, Inc., is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit
in California, according to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 7, 2012, Richard Clement ("plaintiff"), as putative
representative for the shareholders of CLRS Technology Company
("CLRS"), filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached its October 15, 2010
merger agreement with CLRS, and in particular alleges that the
Company was required, but failed, to use its best efforts to
market CLARO during the earnout period.  The Company denies these
allegations.  The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq.  The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.

Headquartered in Hayward, California, Solta Medical, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and
markets energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic
applications.  The Company was incorporated in California in 1996
as Thermage, Inc., and reincorporated in Delaware in 2001.


STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation continues to defend
itself against antitrust class action lawsuits filed in various
states, according to the Company's March 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title
insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and
licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.  All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  To date, 78 such complaints have been filed,
each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its
affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the
aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily
dismissed.

As of July 25, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed).  The
dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the United
States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs' petitions for review of those
decisions.  The United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit
has affirmed the dismissal of the Ohio complaints, the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissals of the
Delaware and New Jersey complaints, and the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the RESPA claims
in New York.  On October 25, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Third Circuit; and the Company filed an opposition
to the petition on January 14, 2013.

Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions,
it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does
not believe that the outcome will materially affect its
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Stewart Information Services Corporation --
http://www.stewart.com/-- a Delaware corporation formed in 1970
and headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The Company and its
predecessors have been engaged in the title business since 1893.
Stewart Information is a customer-focused, global title insurance
and real estate services company offering products and services
through its direct operations, network of approved agencies and
other companies within the Stewart family.


TORO CO: Lawnmower Purchasers' Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against The Toro Company
and other defendants that, similar to the class action litigation
previously filed by plaintiffs in the United States and settled by
the company pursuant to a settlement agreement that became final
in February 2011, (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that the horsepower labels on the products the
plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate, (ii) seeks certification of
a class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994,
purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the company and other
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended February 1, 2013.

The Company's management continues to evaluate this Canadian
litigation and, in the event the Company is unable to favorably
resolve this litigation, while management does not currently
believe that this litigation would have a material adverse effect
on the Company's annual consolidated operating results or
financial condition, an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be
material to the company's consolidated operating results for a
particular period.

Based in Bloomington, Minnesota, The Toro Company designs,
manufactures, and markets professional turf maintenance equipment
and services, turf irrigation systems, agricultural micro-
irrigation systems, landscaping equipment and lighting, and
residential yard and snow removal products.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles One Case in Sudden Acceleration MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Toyota has settled one of the last remaining cases brought on
behalf of consumers over sudden acceleration defects.  Under the
agreement, the company will pay $16 million -- half to the DA's
office in Orange County, Calif., and half to a gang prevention
program.  The settlement does not resolve hundreds of cases
pending in multidistrict litigation asserting that drivers were
injured or died in accidents attributed to sudden acceleration.


TRUMPETTE INC: Recalls 33,000 "Aubree's" and "Hearts" Baby Socks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Trumpette Inc., of Sacramento, California, and
manufacturer, Asia Socks, of China, announced a voluntary recall
of about 33,000 pairs of "Aubree's" and "Hearts" baby socks.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The flowers and the bows on the baby socks can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

The firm has received eight reports of the flowers or bows
detaching from the socks.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves "Aubree's" and "Hearts" baby socks sold in
sizes 0 to 12 months.  "Aubree's" socks have flowers attached to
the toes.  "Hearts" socks have bows attached to the toes of the
heart-patterned socks.  "TRUMPETTE" is printed on the soles.  They
were sold in packages of six pairs of socks in multiple colors.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/FszGnu

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy
Buy Baby, Right Start and Trumpette stores nationwide and online
at buybuybaby.com, rightstart.com and trumpette.com from December
2012 through February 2013 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled socks away from
babies and remove the flowers or bows to eliminate the hazard, or
return the socks to the place of purchase or Trumpette for a full
refund or store credit.  Trumpette Inc. may be reached toll-free
at (877) 938-7265, from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, or online at http://www.trumpette.com/and click
on Recall for more information.


UNITED STATES: ICE Settles Class Action Over Raids for $1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has agreed to change how its
agents conduct raids and enter private homes when seeking alien
fugitives.  Settling a class action with eight Latino families who
claim ICE agents illegally entered their homes, the agency also
has agreed to pay $1 million in damages.


WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Suit in Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2010, West Bank, a subsidiary of West
Bancorporation, Inc., was sued in a purported class action lawsuit
that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged by West
Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on bank card
transactions, but not checks or Automated Clearing House items,
are impermissible finance charges under the Iowa Consumer Credit
Code, rather than allowable fees, and that the sequence in which
West Bank formerly posted items for payment violated its duties of
good faith under its customer account agreements, the Iowa Uniform
Commercial Code, and the Iowa Consumer Credit Code.  The case is
currently being brought by Darla and Jason T. Legg, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, in the Iowa District
Court for Polk County, Iowa.  West Bank believes the allegations
in the lawsuit are factually and legally incorrect in material
ways.  West Bank is vigorously defending the action.  The amount
of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now
because there are substantial and different defenses concerning
the various claims of potential liability and class certification.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 6, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

West Bancorporation, Inc. -- http://www.westbankiowa.com/-- is an
Iowa corporation and a bank holding company.  The Company,
headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa, was formed in 1984 to own
West Des Moines State Bank, an Iowa chartered bank, which is now
known as West Bank.


WILLIAM CARTER: Recalls 218,000 Infant Clothing With Zippers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The William Carter Company, of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 218,000 One-piece footed infant clothing
with a zipper.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The zipper pull can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves eight styles of one-piece, footed cotton
clothing for infants made by Carter's.  They have a zipper from
the foot to the neck and were sold in sizes newborn, 3, 6 and 9
months.  Baby B'gosh(R), Child of Mine(R) made by Carter's or Just
One You(R) made by Carter's is printed on the fabric inside the
neck area.  The style number is printed on a side seam label.

Brand          Style #   Description
-----          -------   -----------
Baby B'gosh    414-208   Yellow with white quarter moons and
                          gray and white stars print.

Child of Mine  715-839   Baseball-style, white with blue
                          stripes, yellow accents and  "Little
                          Brother" printed on the chest.

Just One You   520-242   White background with navy stripes and
                          green neck  binding.  Sold as a 2-pack
                          with:


                597B537   Light blue with a nautical and green
                          crabs print and "Captain Cutie" on the
                          left chest.

                520-243   White with a pink cupcake print.  Sold
                          as 2-pack with:




                597B538   Pink with small polka dots and a bunny
                          ballerina on the left chest.

                520-244   White with green stripes and an
                          elephant and duck on the left chest.
                          Sold as 2-pack with:

                597B539   White with a gray elephant, gray bear,
                          green frog and yellow duck print.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/IRRJD9

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
OshKosh B'gosh, Walmart and Target nationwide from December 2012
through January 2013 for between $7 and $20.  Baby B'gosh
sleepwear was also sold online at www.oshkoshbgosh.com.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled clothing away from
infants and return it to Carter's for a full refund.  Carter's may
be reached toll-free at (888) 282-4674 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.Carters.com/and click on Product Recalls.


* Alliance Claim Funding Expands to Canada
------------------------------------------
Alliance Claim Funding, LLC, which provides lawsuit loans and case
pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs, is expanding its legal
funding services to Canada.

Some of the case types the firm specializes in funding are:

     * Automobile accident,
     * Slip and fall,
     * Labor law,
     * Product liability,
     * Motorcycle accidents,
     * Premises liability,
     * Personal injury case,
     * Medical malpractice

The firm provides lawsuit services and lawsuit cash advances
across the United States.  The firm services most states with
lawsuit loans and settlement cash advances:

     Alabama       Indiana         Nebraska        South Carolina
     Alaska        Iowa            Nevada          South Dakota
     Arizona       Kansas          New Hampshire   Tennessee
     Arkansas      Kentucky        New Jersey      Texas
     California    Louisiana       New Mexico      Utah
     Connecticut   Maine           New York        Vermont
     Delaware      Massachusetts   North Dakota    Virginia
     Florida       Michigan        Ohio            Washington
     Georgia       Minnesota       Oklahoma        West Virginia
     Hawaii        Mississippi     Oregon          Wisconsin
     Idaho         Missouri        Pennsylvania    Wyoming
     Illinois      Montana         Rhode Island

Due to individual state laws and regulations, the firm is no
longer able to provide lawsuit cash advance services in the
following states: Colorado, Maryland, and North Carolina.

Alliance Claim Funding boasts of fast loan approval, providing
funding in as little as 24 to 48 hours.  No collateral is
required.  Clients may repay when the case settles.  No credit
checks or employment checks.  No restrictions on how the money is
used.

Alliance Claim Funding may be reached at:

          Alliance Claim Funding, LLC
          1040 Avenue Of The Americas
          Twenty Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (888) 732-3389
          http://www.allianceclaimfunding.com/


* Class Action Lawyers Prepare as FCC Confirms Radiation Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tero Kuittinen, writing for BGR, reports that within a few days
after the Federal Communications Commission confirmed it will
review cell phone radiation guidelines, class action lawyers of a
certain ilk have swung to action.  Since the FCC previously issued
guidelines about cell phone use in 1996, it is quite natural it
will revisit the issue in 2013.  But that does not mean you can't
put a sinister spin on the development.

In a press release dated March 27th, "Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a
nationwide law firm representing clients in cell phone radiation
lawsuits, notes that a new study has found that radiation from
cell phones may cause damage to brain tissue."

This distinguished law firm cites an ominous study by Finland's
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority finding that "one hour of
cell phone radiation can cause cells in blood vessel walls to
shrink, allowing potentially harmful substances in the blood to
'leak' into the  brain."  The law firm does not directly cite the
scientific paper, but refers to a Daily Mail article describing
the research.


* Class Actions Over Accounting Fraud Plunge in 2012
----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad Contact, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that class actions asserting accounting irregularities
fell sharply last year following a one-time increase in 2011
attributed to a surge of Chinese reverse mergers, according to a
Cornerstone Research report. Even so, accounting fraud cases
brought larger settlements than most shareholder litigation.

The consulting firm found that accounting fraud case filings
dropped from 78 in 2011 to 45 in 2012 -- the fewest case filings
in six years, reflecting an ebb tide for lawsuits against Chinese
issuers that become public through reverse mergers with companies
listed on U.S. stock exchanges.

Many such deals resulted in financial restatements and alleged
violations of generally accepted accounting principles.  There
were 21 fewer Chinese reverse merger cases in 2012 than during the
year before.

"Reverse-merger cases themselves accounted for two-thirds of the
drop we saw in accounting fraud cases," Cornerstone vice president
Elaine Harwood said.  "As those cases played out, one would assume
that any of them that had a significant stock price reaction have
been filed, and that trend is probably coming to an end."

Cornerstone first reported on the decline in case filings in
March.  The new report, issued on Wednesday, highlighted a subset
of securities class action filings implicating the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, passed in 2002 in response to accounting scandals at WorldCom
Inc. and Enron Corp.

Accounting fraud cases, which Cornerstone has been tracking for
the past four years, include alleged violations of generally
accepted accounting principles, financial restatements or a
failure to put into place sufficient internal controls.

Shareholder class actions slowed during the second half of the
year, when only 14 accounting fraud cases were filed, representing
22 percent of total new class actions, according to Cornerstone.

Accounting cases also made up a smaller proportion of total class
action filings last year, decreasing to 30 percent from 42 percent
in 2011.

For the third year in a row, most accounting fraud cases involved
allegations or announcements of weaknesses in the internal
controls required under Sarbanes-Oxley.  For the second year in a
row, more than one in three involved a financial restatement.

Such restatements were associated with an approximately 15 percent
increase in the settlement amount, Harwood said.

"The fact you're having more cases involving restatements, or a
greater proportion of them involving restatements, could lead to
or continue the trend in accounting cases to represent a large
portion of total settlement dollars," she said.

Although the number of settlements was low, the proportion of
accounting fraud cases that settled, when compared to overall
securities class actions, increased in 2012 to 68 percent,
compared with 49 percent the year before.

Accounting fraud cases made up 90 percent of the $2.9 billion in
settlement value in 2012, and the median settlement amount for an
accounting fraud case was $15 million last year, compared with $6
million for an ordinary shareholder class action.

"We're finding a striking difference between a typical settlement
size for accounting cases compared to non-accounting cases,"
Ms. Harwood said.  "That's higher than in prior years."

Moreover, of the top six settlements worth $100 million or more in
2012, five involved accounting fraud allegations, she said.

"Even if filings were down, settlements are significant for
accounting cases," Ms. Harwood said.

Cornerstone predicted recent regulatory changes, including the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which
encourages whistleblower participation in U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission cases, could increase the number of accounting
fraud cases during 2013.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, another reform passed
last year, might increase the number of cases alleging internal
control weaknesses, since it exempts emerging growth companies
from having to publish an auditor report for as many as five years
following an initial public offering.

"If you relax that requirement and now you don't have the added
report on internal controls that might encourage companies to
strengthen those controls, you could see emerging growth companies
have restatements or issues with their accounting in the future
that could lead to lawsuits," Ms. Harwood said.


* Judicial Panel Sends Drywall MDL to E.D. Pa. Court
----------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that although there was disagreement among the parties as to which
federal district court would be best to handle the litigation, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
decided to consolidate more than a dozen suits alleging price-
fixing on the part of major manufacturers of drywall in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


                             *********

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  * * *