CAR_Public/130424.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 24, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 80

                             Headlines


ABX LOGISTICS: Aug. 9 Fairness Hearing of $105.6MM Settlement
ALLEN HOSPITAL: To Settle Discrimination Class Action for $1MM
ALTA RESTAURANT: Marler Clark Files Hepatitis A Scare Class Action
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Insurance Carrier Funded Securities Suit Deal
AT&T MOBILITY: BYOD Employers to Lose More Than $100,000

BEST BUY: Retail Group Objects to $7.25BB Class Action Settlement
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: McPhadden Samac Files Pradax Class Action
BOEING CO: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Class Action Ruling
CAPITOL RECORDS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Davis" Royalty Class Action
CINTAS CORP: No 6th Cir. Ruling Yet on Appeal in Gender Bias Suit

DE BEERS: Consumers May Wait Longer for Class Settlement Checks
EPOCRATES INC: Faces Athenahealth Merger-Related Class Suit
FITFLOP USA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Shoe Health Claims
GENTIVA HEALTH: Awaits Final Approval of "Wilkie" Suit Settlement
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit

GENTIVA HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Rindfleisch Suit
GOODYEAR TIRE: French Workers File Suit Over Plant Shutdown
HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Parent Defends MERS-Related Class Suit
INTERMEC INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Del. Merger-Related Suit
INTERMEC INC: Awaits Ruling on Injunction Bid in Washington Suit

INTL FCSTONE: July 16 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
JEFFERIES GROUP: Facing 7 Class Suits Over Leucadia Transaction
KB HOME: Still Facing 8 Actions Over Defective Chinese Drywall
L & L ENERGY: Defends Securities Suits in Washington and Nevada
LENNAR CORP: To Settle 40 Drywall Claims as Part of Louisiana MDL

MARCUS CORP: Goodman Suit Against Platinum Condominium Now Closed
NAVISTAR INT'L: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action in Ill.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Class Action May Take Years
NEW YORK: Class Action Challenges "Taxi of Tomorrow" Bidding
S1 CORP: June 4 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

SCHNUCKS: Faces Class Action Over Payment Card Fraud
SOMERSET HILLS: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New Jersey
SOUTHERN STAR: Price Litigation I & II Remain Open
SPI ELECTRICITY: Fire Victim Testifies in Class Action Trial
STEC INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $35.75 Million

STONE STREET: Insurers Refuse Indemnification for Text Spam Suit
THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Class Action Reaches Discovery Phase
TISHMAN SPEYER: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Inks $2MM Accord in La. Policyholders' Suit
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Credit Ratings Suits and Investigations Ongoing

UNIONBANCAL CORP: "Larsen" Suit Administrator Gives Out Payments
UNITED STATES: AIG Seeks Dismissal of Greenberg's Class Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: NYPSA Class Action Harbinger of More Suits
VISA INC: Gag Orders Against Anti-Settlement Trade Groups Sought
VOLT INFO: Paid $2.6 Million in 2012 to Settle Class Suit

WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Class Suits Over LOESTRIN 24 FE Product
WELLS CORE: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
WINSTAR COMMS: Court Grants Class Certification in Securities Suit
ZEP INC: Says $1.6MM Likely Settlement Cost of Sales Agents' Suit

* Foley Hoag Discusses Ruling on U.S. Copyright Group Class Action
* Lawyer Favors Mediation in Employer-Employee Lawsuits
* Securities Class Action Filings Down 10% in 2012, PwC Reveals
* Self-Driving Cars Face Threat of Class Actions
* Two Supreme Court Rulings Prompt Class Certification Confusion


                             *********


ABX LOGISTICS: Aug. 9 Fairness Hearing of $105.6MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following class-action Settlements have been preliminarily
approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York and are being announced by the law firms of
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP; Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P and Lovell, Stewart, Halebian, Jacobson LLP:

Proposed Settlements have been reached in a class action lawsuit,
which claims that freight forwarders throughout the world
conspired to fix prices for their services, including on routes
between the U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, and the U.K.
Some of the companies who were sued have agreed to settlements.
These "Settling Defendants" are:

    * ABX Logistics Worldwide NV/SA;

    * EGL, Inc. and EGL Eagle Global Logistics;

    * Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.;

    * Kuehne + Nagel International AG and Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;

    * Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co., Ltd.

    * Schenker, Inc. and its parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, including Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, and BAX
Global, Inc.; and

    * Morrison Express Logistics Pte. (Singapore) and Morrison
Express Corporation (U.S.A.);

    * United Aircargo Consolidators, Inc.;

    * UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and

    * Vantec Corporation and Vantec World Transport (USA), Inc.

The lawsuit will continue against those companies that have not
settled.  A list of the Non-Settling Defendants is available at
http://www.FreightForwardCase.com

The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a minimum of
$105,611,864.54 for the benefit of the Class. This money will be
put into a Settlement Fund that will be distributed to Class
Members. The Settling Defendants' specific contributions to the
Settlement Fund are:

     Settling Defendant(s)   Amount Contributing
     ---------------------   -------------------
     Schenker                 $8,750,000
     EGL                     $10,000,000 plus up to $10,000,000
                                         in proceeds from its
                                         cash benefits from the
                                         Air Cargo case (a
                                         separate class action)
     Expeditors              70% of all its cash benefits from
                                         the Air Cargo case
     Nishi-Nippon            $20,082,896 plus up to $500,000
                                         from the Air Cargo
                                         case
     Vantec                   $9,900,000 plus all its cash
                                         benefits from the Air
                                         Cargo case with a
                                         guaranteed minimum of
                                         $300,000
     United Aircargo
     Consolidators, Inc.        $295,275 and 75% (subject to
                                         adjustment as specified
                                         in the Settlement
                                         Agreement) of all cash
                                         benefits from the Air
                                         Cargo case
     Kuehne & Nagel          $28,000,000 plus 99.7% of all cash
                                         benefits from the Air
                                         Cargo case
     Morrison Express         $1,678,700 and 72.5% of all cash
                                         benefits received from
                                         the Air Cargo case after
                                         October 5, 2012
     UTi Worldwide, Inc.      $3,243,658 and 80.5% of all cash
                                         benefits received from
                                         the Air Cargo case after
                                         December 5, 2012
     ABX Logistics
     Worldwide NV/SA          $3,500,000

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on August 9,
2013, at the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York,
located at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201.

Individuals and businesses are included in one or more of the
Settlements if they: a) Directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services; b) From any of the Settling or Non-Settling Defendants,
their subsidiaries, or affiliates; c) From January 1, 2001 through
September 14, 2012, d) In the U.S., or outside the U.S. for
shipments within, to, or from the U.S.

"Freight Forwarding Services" means freight forwarding,
transportation, or logistics services for shipments, including
services relating to the organization or transportation of items
via air, ocean, rail, and road, both nationally and
internationally, and related activities such as customs clearance,
warehousing, and ground services.

Class Members have a choice of whether or not to stay in the
Class.  If Class Members choose to stay in the Class, they will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and they
will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Settling
Defendants for the issues involved in this lawsuit.  Class Members
who choose to stay in the Class may object to all or part of one
or more of the Settlements.

In order to receive the benefits of these settlements, Class
Members must submit a Claim Form online or by mail by November 22,
2013.  Some Class Members will have received a notice packet in
the mail containing a Claim Form.  For those who did not receive a
notice packet in the mail, they can submit a Claim Form at
http://www.FreightForwardCase.com

They may also contact the Claims Administrator to request a Claim
Form be mailed to them by calling 1-877-276-7340 (in the U.S. or
Canada) or 503-520-4400 (outside the U.S. or Canada) or writing to
the following address:

Freight Forwarders Claims Administrator P.O. Box 3747 Portland,
Oregon 97208-3747

For more information regarding this lawsuit and Class Member
rights, including how Class Members can exclude themselves and how
to get a copy of a detailed notice, please visit
http://www.FreightForwardCase.comcall 1-877-276-7340, or write
to:  Freight Forwarders Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3747,
Portland, OR, 97208-3747.

The Court has appointed these firms and lawyers as Class Counsel:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Tel: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Tel: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Williams
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Tel: (650) 697-6000
          Fax: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com


ALLEN HOSPITAL: To Settle Discrimination Class Action for $1MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Russell, writing for KWWL, reports that Allen Hospital
will likely pay out $1 million to people who claimed the hospital
discriminated against them on the basis of race.

Spokesman Jim Waterbury said there were 69 claims made in the 2010
class action lawsuit which was filed by Robyn Meeks against the
hospital after she claimed she was turned down for a number of
positions.  Mr. Waterbury said of those 69 claims, 35 were
validated by the claims administrator.  He said 20 of the 35
validated claims were made by people who were not hired but
claimed they should have been, and 15 were made by people who
work, or have worked, at Allen Hospital.

According to Mr. Waterbury, both sides have asked the court to
approve a settlement that includes the following:

     $1,050,000 in claims

     $667,000 in legal fees for plaintiffs' attorneys

     $250,000 to benefit non-profit organizations serving African
Americans in Waterloo

     $20,000 (or less) in expenses

According to Mr. Waterbury, as part of the consent decree, Allen
Hospital promised to promote cultural awareness, sensitivity and
competence in its workforce.  To date, Mr. Waterbury said the
hospital has updated its Zero Tolerance policy to include a
grievance committee of one member from Allen administration, one
African American employee and one African American member from the
community.

"This group would review any complaints or concerns regarding race
issues raised by employees.  As of this date, there have been no
complaints for consideration," said Mr. Waterbury.

He said the hospital has conducted four mandatory half-day
training sessions for managers, and it will continue sessions this
year for new managers.  Additionally, the hospital created two
15-minute modules that all employees are required to take.

Mr. Waterbury said Allen Hospital has implemented a Diversity
Awareness Team that helps educate employees about diversity around
the community through posters, flyers and special events each
month.

"This group is also expanding into community outreach to allow
employees to experience need in the community," said
Mr. Waterbury.

He said the hospital plans on introducing new initiatives in 2013,
including expanding activities with the Diversity Awareness Team
and getting partnering with local churches and associations to
"get the word out about applying for work at Allen Hospital."

According to Quad-City Times, attorneys for both sides appeared at
an April 8 hearing in Black Hawk County District Court to discuss
the joint motion to finalize the settlement.  Judge Todd Geer said
he'll make a decision soon on the terms.

Mr. Waterbury said a great deal of work went into the settlement.

"We want the community to know what we've done, and we want them
to know we made good on our promise," he said.

Ms. Meeks' attorney, Thomas Duff, applauded the efforts by both
sides to come to an agreement.

"The parties really cooperated to make the process go smoothly and
easily," he said.

Three individuals contested their denied claims, but they failed
to show up to the April 8 court hearing.  Judge Geer said he'll
review those claims.


ALTA RESTAURANT: Marler Clark Files Hepatitis A Scare Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Bill Marler at Food Poison
Journal, Marler Clark, the nation's leading law firm representing
victims of foodborne illness outbreaks, and Underberg & Kessler
filed a class action lawsuit on April 10 against Alta Restaurant.
The lawsuit was filed in New York County Superior Court on behalf
of named plaintiff Michael Piacente and other restaurant patrons
who received hepatitis A vaccinations after alleged exposure to
the hepatitis A virus at Alta Restaurant between March 23 and
April 2, 2013.

On April 5, the New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene advised Alta Restaurant patrons who had eaten dessert
purchased from the restaurant between March 23 and April 2, 2013
to seek vaccination against hepatitis A, a communicable disease
that is often transmitted through food-contamination.  According
to multiple news reports, a pastry chef who works at the
restaurant had recently returned from Mexico and contracted the
virus.  Because symptoms of infection do not appear for roughly
2 weeks after exposure, the Alta Restaurant worker prepared food
while infectious, but before exhibiting symptoms illness, which
include jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes) and fatigue.

The Health Department encouraged Alta Restaurant customers to
contact a healthcare provider for vaccination or to visit one of
three vaccination clinics the public health agency offered.
According to the complaint, Michael Piacente obtained the
appropriate vaccination against hepatitis A from his private
physician.  He also had blood drawn so a sample could be tested
for hepatitis A.

"I've seen this situation play out time and again," said William
Marler, attorney for the plaintiffs.  "If restaurants would
require workers to be vaccinated -- or better yet, pay for
vaccinations -- they could go a long way toward preventing these
public health scares and the loss of business that naturally goes
with them."

Marler Clark has represented hundreds of people who contracted
hepatitis A after eating contaminated food.  The law firm has
represented thousands who received hepatitis A vaccine or immune
globulin injections to prevent infection.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Insurance Carrier Funded Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc. disclosed in its March 11, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that its settlement of a
securities class action lawsuit is covered and was funded by its
insurance carrier; hence, the settlement is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  On
February 11, 2010, the Company, and certain of its executive
officers, moved to dismiss the class action.  On June 2, 2010, the
Court issued an order denying these motions to dismiss.  The
amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making untrue statements of material fact
and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.  On March 17,
2011, the class was certified for persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between July 24, 2007, and October 23,
2007.  The parties had commenced discovery when, on April 14,
2011, an agreement was reached to settle the action following a
mediation before a retired federal judge.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company's insurance carriers agreed to pay the
settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete settlement of all
claims, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the
Company or any party in the action.  Throughout the litigation,
the Company and the individual defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, the allegations made against them.

The Company agreed with the insurance carriers to settle the
action on these terms, because it was in the best interests of the
Company to avoid the burdens, risk, uncertainties and expense that
would be inherent in continued litigation.  The settlement
agreement included a release for all defendants and other
provisions common in such agreements.  On June 28, 2012, the Court
entered a final order approving the settlement and related
matters.  On October 9, 2012, the Court entered an order directing
entry of judgment and dismissal of the complaint and the claims
therein with prejudice.

As the settlement is covered and was funded by the Company's
insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. -- http://www.AmbassadorsGroup.com/is a
provider of educational travel experiences and online education
research materials.  The Company was founded in 1967 and
reincorporated in Delaware in 1995.  The Company is headquartered
in Spokane, Washington.


AT&T MOBILITY: BYOD Employers to Lose More Than $100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kaneshige, writing for CIO, reports that with a BYOD twist,
AT&T Mobility agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for
overcharging corporate customers for almost seven years.  But like
most things involving BYOD, this gets complicated.

Some companies embroiled in a class action lawsuit against AT&T
Mobility stand to lose out on thousands of dollars because they
can't participate in a $153 million settlement, says a source
knowledgeable about the lawsuit.

Earlier this year, AT&T Mobility denied all actions of wrongdoing
but agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the company
overcharged millions of customers from January 2004 to December
2010.  Brought by MBA Surety Agency, the class action lawsuit is
in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the City of St.
Louis, Missouri.

Here's the interesting part: Some companies that jumped on the
BYOD bandwagon prior to 2010 are losing out on more than $100,000.
By letting employees transfer a corporate-liable smartphone to a
personal-liable one, companies gave up their right to be part of
the settlement, says the source.

Instead, the BYOD employee is entitled to the settlement even
though the company may have paid the overcharges for years.  If
the BYOD employee changed carriers, though, no one benefits from
the settlement, according to the source.

Whether or not companies have recourse isn't the real issue, at
least not for this article.  Rather, BYOD opens up a Pandora's box
of yet-unimagined consequences.  This class action lawsuit is just
one of many events to come that will make BYOD a very messy
proposal.

Another BYOD legal hotspot is privacy policies.  Companies are
finding that they have to spend a lot of time crafting an employee
BYOD policy that keeps corporate data safe yet doesn't infringe on
a person's right to privacy on their personally owned device.

This can get incredibly muddled.

Here's a scenario given by Ben Tomhave, principal consultant at
governance, risk and compliance vendor LockPath and co-chairman of
the American Bar Association's SciTech Information Security
Committee: Let's say IT conducts a search on a BYOD iPhone or iPad
and stumbles upon signs that an employee has been working on a
project that potentially undermines or competes with the
organization.

If the employee was doing this on his own time -- that is, not
company time -- can the company fire the employee based solely on
this potentially ill-gotten evidence? If the employee is
terminated and the company remote wipes his iPad, deleting
personal data, is the company culpable?

"It's a slippery slope," Mr. Tomhave told CIO.com last year.  With
the recent class action lawsuit, Mr. Tomhave's words have proved
prescient.  BYOD is getting even more slippery.


BEST BUY: Retail Group Objects to $7.25BB Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that a
retail lobbying group that represents Best Buy Co., Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. and Target Corp. is objecting to a proposed $7.25
billion class-action settlement with Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc.
and several large banks over merchant-transaction fees.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, whose members include
more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers and other firms,
also will opt out of the deal as it tries to drum up opposition to
a settlement that would end long-standing litigation against the
payment networks.

"RILA and the overwhelming majority of our members agree that the
proposed class action settlement is a bad deal for retailers,"
Deborah White, executive vice president and general counsel for
the Arlington, Va., group, said in a statement sent by an
organization spokesman on April 11.

The trade group is opting out and objecting to the settlement on
behalf of itself.  Retailers that are members of the group must
individually take such steps on their own.

The settlement, announced in July, addresses lawsuits filed in
2005 by several merchant trade groups arguing Visa, MasterCard and
several large banks that issue the payment networks' credit cards
conspire to set transaction fees that retailers pay at arbitrarily
high levels.  The fees, known as interchange, are set by Visa and
MasterCard but collected by the banks each time their customers
swipe their credit cards.

The merchants also alleged the defendants have limited their
ability to drive down costs by forcing them to abide by rules that
have prevented them from surcharging customers who pay with credit
cards.

Under the deal, the defendants have proposed paying $6.05 billion
to a class of eight million merchants and temporarily reducing
interchange fees by amount equal to $1.2 billion.  In addition,
Visa and MasterCard agreed to drop their bans on surcharging, a
change that took effect in January and allows merchants to add an
extra fee to customers who pay with a credit card.

But the deal has sparked opposition from large merchants like
Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot Inc., as well as several trade
groups that are named plaintiffs in the litigation, including the
National Association of Convenience Stores, National Grocers
Association and National Restaurant Association.

They argue the settlement will do little to keep the cost of
interchange fees from rising and worry the deal grants overly
broad releases from future litigation to the defendants.  Under
the deal, merchants can opt out of the monetary portion of the
settlement but are unable to opt out of the rule changes Visa and
MasterCard have made.

"The proposed settlement undermines merchants' legal rights
forever and fails to restrain the continued growth of swipe fees
increases," Ms. White said.

Proponents of the deal have accused critics of embarking on a
smear campaign against the settlement in hopes of drumming up
political support on Capitol Hill for potential legislation that
would limit credit-card transaction fees more drastically.

Trish Wexler, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Payments Coalition,
which represents Visa, MasterCard and large banks on payments
issues, called RILA's decision a "public relations stunt designed
to distract attention from Thursday's hearing where Washington
retail lobbyists are having to defend themselves for putting out
misleading information on the settlement."

Ms. Wexler was referring to a hearing in U.S. District Court in
Brooklyn, N.Y., scheduled for April 11, where several retail trade
groups are expected to defend information they have posted on
websites urging merchants to opt out and object to the settlement.
Last week, Judge John Gleeson ordered the parties to show why they
shouldn't be forced to alter information on their websites and
send out corrected information to merchants who already may have
opted out or objected to the deal based on their information.

Attorneys representing the proposed class of merchants in the case
had alleged in court filings that the trade groups were posting
inaccurate information on the sites intended to bias retailers
against the deal.

Spokesmen for Visa and MasterCard declined to comment on April 11.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: McPhadden Samac Files Pradax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto law firm McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP on April 10 disclosed
that it has commenced a proposed national class action against
Boehringer Ingelheim relating to the blood thinner Pradax.  The
lawsuit is on behalf of all persons throughout Canada who ingested
Pradax.

The claim is for damages in the amount of $150,000,000.

Pradax is used to prevent clotting in patients who suffer from
atrial fibrillation (a condition in which the heart beats
irregularly, increasing the chance of clots forming in the body
and possibly causing strokes).  It is also used by patients who
have had hip and knee surgery.

There have been reports that Pradax causes excessive bleeding.
There is no antidote that can be taken to stop excessive bleeding
that might be caused by Pradax.  Bleeding caused by the drug that
Pradax was intended to replace, Warfarin, can easily be stopped
using a simple administration of vitamin K.

In the lawsuit, it is the plaintiff's position that patients
should have been warned about the lack of an antidote.  Claims are
also made on behalf of others who say they suffered harm because
of Pradax.


BOEING CO: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
John Stigi, Esq., Daniel G. Rosenberg, Esq. and Valentina
Shenderovich, Esq. at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP report
that on City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Boeing Co.,
Nos. 12-1899, 12-2009 2013 WL 1197791 (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013),
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(Posner, J.) affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud class
action against the Boeing Company and remanded the question of
whether sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure should be levied against plaintiffs' counsel after
allegations attributed to a confidential witness, which initially
saved the case from dismissal, were later denied by the witness.
The Court's ruling provides a strong reminder that plaintiffs'
counsel in securities cases must exercise great care when using
allegations of confidential witnesses to satisfy the heightened
pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4.

This class action was brought purportedly on behalf of purchasers
of Boeing common stock.  Plaintiffs alleged that despite failure
of two stress tests on the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner in April and
May 2009, Boeing executives made representations that the
Dreamliner would have its first flight on June 30, 2009.  On June
23, 2009, Boeing announced the cancellation of the first flight
due to an anomaly revealed by the stress tests that Boeing had
hoped (but was unable) to resolve in time for the June 30, 2009
flight. Boeing also announced that the cancellation would cause
delay in delivery of the Dreamliner, which many airlines had
already ordered.  In response, Boeing's stock price dropped by
more than 10%.  Plaintiffs alleged that Boeing's representations
regarding the planned first flight of the Dreamliner were false or
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b).

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed the initial complaint for failure to plead
particularized facts giving rise to a strong inference that
defendants made the alleged misrepresentations with scienter.  The
district court, however, granted leave to amend.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs attempted to bolster their
scienter allegations with facts supposedly supplied by a
confidential witness. Plaintiffs described him in the amended
complaint as a "Boeing Senior Structural Analyst Engineer" who
allegedly had worked on wing-stress tests of the 787-8 Dreamliner
and who, as part of his job, supposedly had direct access to and
first-hand knowledge of the results of the stress tests, as well
as internal, contemporaneous communications regarding those tests.
On the basis of these new allegations, the district court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed to
discovery.

Defendants promptly took the deposition of the confidential
witness, who by this time had been identified.  At his deposition,
the formerly confidential witness denied virtually everything
plaintiffs' counsel had alleged in the amended complaint.  For
example, he did not work on the Dreamliner 787-8, but rather a
different model, the 787-9; he did not have knowledge of or access
to internal Boeing communications regarding tests on the 787-8;
and he was not a Boeing employee when the 787-8 tests were
conducted, but rather was an outside contractor.  When plaintiffs'
counsel conceded that this individual, because of his testimony,
would not be a trial witness for plaintiffs, defendants moved for
reconsideration of the district court's denial of their motion to
dismiss. The district court reconsidered, and dismissed the
complaint, but this time with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed,
challenging the dismissal, while defendants cross-appealed,
challenging the failure of the district court to impose sanctions
on plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to Rule 11.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal and remanded for a
determination of sanctions.  Judge Posner first reviewed the
language of Section 10(b) and the Reform Act, which he explained
altered the landscape of federal securities fraud litigation in
four significant ways: (1) for "forward-looking" statements,
plaintiff must prove actual knowledge of falsity; (2) the
complaint must create a "strong inference" that defendant acted
with the requisite state of mind; (3) the heavy pleading burden
induces plaintiffs' lawyers to seek out confidential sources of
information about the defendant in advance of filing a complaint;
and (4) even if neither side files a Rule 11 motion, the district
judge must determine each party's compliance with the Rule 11 and
impose appropriate sanctions for violations.

The Court had little trouble holding that in the absence of the
allegations attributed to the confidential witness the complaint
failed to provide sufficient particularized facts giving rise to a
strong inference that defendants made false statements regarding
the first flight of the Dreamliner with scienter.

The Seventh Circuit then analyzed defendants' cross-appeal for
imposition of sanctions.  The district court had noted that
plaintiffs' counsel did not speak with the confidential witness
until six months after they filed the amended complaint, and that
such failure by plaintiffs' counsel to verify the allegations in
their investigator's notes amounted to a fraud on the court.
Judge Posner seemed to agree, noting that the plaintiffs' law firm
was alleged to have made similarly misleading confidential witness
allegations in at least three other cases.  Judge Posner
reiterated that under the Reform Act, defendants need not move for
the imposition of sanctions; instead, the statute imposes on the
district court the affirmative duty to determine sua sponte
whether sanctions are appropriate upon final adjudication of the
action.  The Court thus remanded to the district court for such
determination, making clear his view that sanctions likely were
warranted.

This decision illustrates the consequences of careless use of
confidential witnesses in securities fraud complaints, and
provides a cogent reminder that the Reform Act mandates that the
district court consider the imposition of sanctions in every case
where the complaint fails to pass muster under its heightened
pleading standards.


CAPITOL RECORDS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Davis" Royalty Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting in
part and denying in part, without leave to amend, a motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit styled as MARTHA DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
12-cv-1602 YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Martha Davis brought the action as a member of the music group,
"The Motels," and a shareholder, beneficiary, and/or successor-in-
interest of the now-dissolved The Motels Music Corporation, Inc.

Ms. Davis brought the complaint alleging a nationwide class action
for breach of standard recording contracts and for statutory
violations of California law against Defendant Capitol Records,
LLC.  Ms. Davis' complaint alleges that Capitol failed to account
properly for royalties stemming from the licensing of musical
performances or recordings she produced and putative class members
under contract with Capitol, which were then were utilized by
digital content providers, such as music download providers, music
streaming providers, and ringtone providers, for digital download,
streaming and distribution.

Capitol filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to strike certain allegations
pursuant to Rule 12(f). Capitol also asked the Court to eliminate
Ms. Davis's claim for punitive damages in connection with her
claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The parties briefed the matter and the Court heard oral argument
on October 2, 2012.

"The motion to dismiss is granted as to the request for punitive
damages only, and is otherwise denied," Judge Gonzalez ruled on
April 18, 2013. The motion to strike allegations pursuant to Rule
12(f) was also denied.

Judge Gonzalez said Ms. Davis has alleged facts to support her
contract claim. Alleging a declaratory relief claim based upon the
same facts is not inappropriate, he added. The Court also
disagreed with Capitol's argument that Ms. Davis's claim for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is
duplicative of her breach of contract claim.

The Court directed Capitol to file and serve its answer to the
Second Amended Class Action no later than May 10, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's April 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/rk81Ijfrom Leagle.com.


CINTAS CORP: No 6th Cir. Ruling Yet on Appeal in Gender Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano),
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
Serrano plaintiffs alleged Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions across
all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.

On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of
Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano
lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative
positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan.
Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service
sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan
were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on
behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the
state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all
private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13
individuals it claimed to represent.

The EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions
and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's opinion and
remanded the claims back to the District Court.

Cintas is also a defendant in another purported class action
lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women,
African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service
sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only
throughout the United States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other remedies.  The claims in Avalos
originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez,
et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004,
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.  On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez
and Avalos African-American, Hispanic and female failure to hire
into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's
intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly
Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos).

On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying
class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos
lawsuits.  Following denial of class certification, the Court
permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed
separately.  In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining
claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case
after the denial of class certification.

On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all
similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice
of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals has made no determination regarding the
merits of Davis' appeal.

Cintas said in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended
February 28, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 9, that the litigation, if decided or settled
adversely to Cintas, may, individually or in the aggregate, result
in liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition,
consolidated results of operation or consolidated cash flows and
could increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis.  Any
estimated liability relating to these proceedings is not
determinable at this time.  Cintas said it may enter into
discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits, and
may enter into settlement agreements if it believes such
settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Cintas Corporation provides (i) corporate
identity uniforms through rental and sales programs, and (ii)
related business services, including entrance mats, restroom
cleaning services and supplies, carpet and tile cleaning services,
first aid, safety and fire protection products and services, and
document management services.


DE BEERS: Consumers May Wait Longer for Class Settlement Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
WSYR-TV reports that people who are waiting for their checks as a
result of the DeBeers class action lawsuit are accustomed to
waiting -- and now they will need to wait some more.

While retailers have received their checks, consumers are still
waiting.

Anyone who has moved in the meantime can update their address by
calling 1-800-760-5431.

Or they can send a letter to the claims administrator at PO Box
9432, Minneapolis, MN, 55440-9432.


EPOCRATES INC: Faces Athenahealth Merger-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Epocrates, Inc., is facing a merger-related class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's March 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On January 7, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with athenahealth, Inc., pursuant to which athenahealth
will acquire Epocrates, subject to completion or waiver of the
conditions for closing the acquisition, for $11.75 per share.

Epocrates, the members of the Epocrates board of directors, and
certain executive officers of Epocrates have been named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought by an
individual Epocrates stockholder challenging the proposed merger
and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the merger pursuant to the terms of the merger
agreement.  Consequently, if the plaintiffs are successful in
obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from completing
the merger pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, such an
injunction may prevent the completion of the merger in the
expected timeframe (or altogether).

Headquartered in San Mateo, California, Epocrates, Inc. --
http://www.epocrates.com/-- is a physician platform for essential
clinical content, practice tools and health industry engagement at
the point of care.  The Epocrates network consists of well over
one million healthcare professionals, including approximately
330,000, or more than 50% of, U.S. physicians.


FITFLOP USA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Shoe Health Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane M. Von Bergen, writing for Philly.com, reports that a lawsuit
filed in federal court in Camden alleges that FitFlop USA's
advertising makes deceptive health claims for the shoes, calling
them "the flip flop with the gym built in."

The shoe fit, so Barbara Glaberson wore it.  But the shoes, she
said, didn't make her fit, so she tossed them aside -- and instead
filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, FitFlop USA L.L.C.

If that lawsuit, filed in federal court in Camden, goes the way
similar class-action suits against other shoe manufacturers have,
FitFlop USA could find itself paying tens of millions of dollars.
And Ms. Glaberson, who bought the shoes at the Cherry Hill Mall,
may get a mere $50 of it -- although not if FitFlop's lawyers
prevail.

They are "vigorously defending" the New York company and founder
Marcia Diane Kilgore against the allegations of false advertising
that form the basis of the suit.  The suit said that the company
falsely claims its shoes tone and tighten leg and buttocks
muscles.

So what kind of lawsuit gets filed that, if successful, pays the
plaintiff only a pittance?  The kind of lawsuit, Ms. Glaberson's
lawyers say, that protects the sanctity of the marketplace,
ensuring that consumers can shop with confidence, relying on the
truthfulness of the advertising they see.

"And that's so important, not just in our economy, but for the
world's economy," said one of Ms. Glaberson's attorneys, Timothy
G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- a partner in Blood, Hurst &
O'Reardon L.L.P. in California.

"It's so rare that consumers have a way of expressing their views
and standing up to these incredible powerful multinational
corporations."

The kind of lawsuit, FitFlop's lawyer counters, that is an
opportunistic money grab for the plaintiff's bar.  "These are
lawyer-driven lawsuits," said William S. Ohlemeyer --
wohlemeyer@bsfllp.com -- a partner working in Boies, Schiller &
Flexner L.L.P.'s New York office.

"The lawyer develops a theory and then tries to find plaintiffs to
serve as class members," Mr. Ohlemeyer said.

"It's expensive and time-consuming for businesses who have to
defend themselves against these suits."

But let's get back to the shoes.

Specifically, a pair of bronze Walkstar sandals, purchased for
$60 in the spring of 2010 at Nordstrom's in the Cherry Hill Mall.

"Barbara works hard to take good care of herself," Mr. Blood said
about his client, 70, who lives in Ventnor.

"She is in very good shape and bought them to improve her
fitness," he said.  "She thought it would be great to get more out
of just walking around.  They did nothing for her, and she felt
like she had been ripped off."

The lawsuit makes the point that Mr. Glaberson is not claiming
that the shoes injured her.  Instead, the case relies strictly on
New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and its provisions about deceptive
business practices, including misrepresentation.

FitFlop advertisements describe the shoes as "the flip flop with
the gym built in."  One says FitFlop sandal wearers "have also
reported relief from plantar fasciitis, heel spurs, chronic back
pain, sciatica," while another online ad said the shoes "help
increase leg and bottom muscle activity."

Mr. Ohlemeyer said that most of FitFlop's customers never even saw
the advertisements; they buy the shoes, as he has, because they
are comfortable.

To get an idea of the stakes in this lawsuit, consider that Mr.
Ohlemeyer's firm has been consistently tapped for many high-
profile cases, among them Bush v. Gore, which determined the
outcome of the 2000 presidential election. (The firm represented
Al Gore.)

They face Mr. Blood and his partners, who, working with the
Federal Trade Commission, have pushed a $25 million settlement in
a lawsuit involving Reebok International Ltd.'s EasyTone shoes.

"The FTC wants national advertisers to understand that they must
exercise some responsibility and ensure that their claims for
fitness gear are supported by sound science," David Vladeck, then
director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in
announcing the settlement Sept. 28, 2011.

The lawyers, Blood said, got about $3.5 million, in that case.
Average payout was about $50 per person.

A $40 million preliminary settlement deal with Skechers, on
similar issues, was negotiated in March and is expected to be
completed soon, Blood said.

In February 2010, his firm, working with other law firms,
persuaded Dannon Co. Inc. to pay $45 million to settle a case
involving health claims for the company's Activia and DanActive
yogurt brands.

"That was one of the first advertising class-action cases that
gained popularity," said Angelo A. Stio 3d, a partner in Pepper
Hamilton L.L.P., who works in the firm's Princeton office and
specializes in defending similar class-action suits.

"This case is on the heels of that [Dannon] model," he said.

Mr. Stio said that the majority of these cases turn on two points
-- whether there is a true class of plaintiffs who are similar
enough, and then on the merits of the facts.

Rarely do the cases get heard by a judge or a jury.  Mostly, he
said, they are resolved, either by being dismissed, withdrawn, or
settled.

"For most defendants," he said, deciding whether to settle "is a
business decision."

Mr. Stio is not involved in the FitFlop case, but a New Jersey
lawyer, James C. Shah, of Collingswood, is.  Mr. Shah, co-counsel
with Mr. Blood, declined to comment on the case, as did Mr.
Glaberson.

The ultimate verdict on this class of shoes may have already come
from the market.

All that type of shoe -- whether they were FitFlops, Skechers, or
Reeboks -- "was one of the hot items" over Christmas in 2010, said
Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst with NPD Group Inc., a well-
known market research firm based in Port Washington, N.Y.  That
year, he said, the category reported $700 million in sales, the
next year $300 million.  Last year, "that dropped to $70 million."

"It went from one of the fastest-growing categories in athletic
shoes," Mr. Cohen said.

"The believability factor has disappeared," he said.  "The
popularity has died off."


GENTIVA HEALTH: Awaits Final Approval of "Wilkie" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced by Catherine
Wilkie, according to the Company's March 11, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleged
wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and California law.  The complaint alleged that the
Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly
basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The complaint further alleged that California
employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal
and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements and timely
payment of wages.  The plaintiff sought class certification,
attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties and damages going back
three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and
hour claims.  The parties held mediation discussions on August 3,
2011, and March 7, 2012.  The parties have finalized the terms of
a monetary settlement, and the Company has paid $5 million in
escrow to settle all claims in the lawsuit, including the
plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs.  The court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on October 5, 2012, and a
hearing on the motion for final court approval of the settlement
was scheduled for March 25, 2013.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.gentiva.com/-- is a
provider of home health services and hospice services serving
patients through approximately 430 locations in 40 states.  The
Company provides a single source for skilled nursing; physical,
occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; hospice
services; social work; nutrition; disease management education;
help with daily living activities; and other therapies and
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered is in Atlanta, Georgia.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Between November 2, 2010, and October 25, 2011, five shareholder
class actions were filed against Gentiva Health Services, Inc. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Each of these actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Company's participation in the Medicare Home Health
Prospective Payment System ("HH PPS").  Following consolidation of
the actions, and the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP as lead counsel, on April 16, 2012, a consolidated shareholder
class action complaint, captioned In re Gentiva Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
complaint, which names Gentiva and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants, asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in
connection with the Company's participation in the HH PPS.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the
price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31,
2008, and October 4, 2011.  On June 15, 2012, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  That motion is fully briefed
and is now pending before the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 11, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unable
to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,
arising from the action on the business, financial condition,
results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the
Company.  The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the
action at this time.  The defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously in the action.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.gentiva.com/-- is a
provider of home health services and hospice services serving
patients through approximately 430 locations in 40 states.  The
Company provides a single source for skilled nursing; physical,
occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; hospice
services; social work; nutrition; disease management education;
help with daily living activities; and other therapies and
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered is in Atlanta, Georgia.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Rindfleisch Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit filed by
Lisa Rindfleisch, et al., remain pending, according to Gentiva
Health Services, Inc.'s March 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees
("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations.  The former
employees claimed they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid"
compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly
basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of
federal and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law
and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").  On October 8,
2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to transfer the venue
of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  On April 13, 2011, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of
the FLSA claims as a collective action.  On May 26, 2011, the
Court bifurcated the FLSA portion of the lawsuit into a liability
phase, in which discovery closed on January 15, 2013, and a
potential damages phase, to be scheduled pending outcome of the
liability phase.  Following a motion for partial summary judgment
by the Company regarding the New York state law claims, the
Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss those claims in a filing
on December 12, 2011.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a North Carolina state law class for NCWHA claims
on January 20, 2012.

On August 29, 2012, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a North Carolina state law class.  The Company
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
claims under the NCWHA on March 22, 2012, which the Court granted
on January 16, 2013.  The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
partial summary judgment with regard to the Company's liability
for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims on April 3, 2012, and continue to
maintain class certification of allegedly similar employees and
seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA.  The parties' deadline for filing
dispositive motions related to the liability phase of the lawsuit
was February 14, 2013.

Based on the information the Company has at this time in the
Rindfleisch lawsuit, the Company is unable to assess the probable
outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this
proceeding on the business, financial condition, results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company.  The
Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss can be made for this lawsuit at this time.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.gentiva.com/-- is a
provider of home health services and hospice services serving
patients through approximately 430 locations in 40 states.  The
Company provides a single source for skilled nursing; physical,
occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; hospice
services; social work; nutrition; disease management education;
help with daily living activities; and other therapies and
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered is in Atlanta, Georgia.


GOODYEAR TIRE: French Workers File Suit Over Plant Shutdown
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that French workers trying to save
their tire-making jobs sued Goodyear in its hometown on April 9,
seeking to block a plant shutdown and win $4 million in damages
for more than 1,100 employees.  The class-action lawsuit was filed
in Summit County Common Pleas Court against Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. on behalf of workers at its factory in Amiens, France.

Robert Gary, an attorney who worked on the filing, said the labor
dispute was taken to court in Ohio because corporate decisions
affecting French workers were made in Akron.

Goodyear hasn't seen the lawsuit and won't comment, spokesman
Keith Price said in an email.

The lawsuit said Goodyear has hurt worker pay, which is tied to
production, by making fewer tires at the plant.  The lawsuit also
said the company has defied French court rulings in favor of the
workers and has violated French laws requiring informing employees
and consulting with them.

Goodyear has been trying to restructure or close its plant in
northern France for five years in the face of a shrinking European
car market.  The workers say Goodyear wants to shift the work to
lower-cost China.  Goodyear says the type of tires made at the
French plant is for Europe and are no longer selling.

Worker protests at the plant erupted after efforts to find a new
buyer fizzled.  The most promising prospect, an American
executive, sent a letter to the French government saying that the
country's economic model is too worker-friendly and discourages
investment.

The factory's closure was announced five years ago by Goodyear
when workers refused to accept any layoffs.  It will be at least
2014 before the French government intervention runs its course and
the plant ultimately shuts down.

Goodyear earned $183 million last year, down from 2011 net income
of $321 million.  In February, the company, in a move similar to
its strategy in North America, said it will cut about 6 million
tire units of high-cost capacity in Europe.


HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Parent Defends MERS-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc.'s parent is defending itself
from a class action lawsuit brought against financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system,
according to the Company's March 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On January 17, 2012, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated was named
a defendant in a putative class action filed on behalf of all 88
counties in Ohio against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other
financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system (MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording
of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law
and seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required
to record every mortgage and assignment on real property located
in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The
complaint also seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although
Huntington Bancshares has not been named as a defendant in the
other cases, similar litigation has been initiated against
MERSCORP, Inc. and other financial institutions in other
jurisdictions throughout the country.

Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. was organized under Ohio law in
1992 and designated as a real estate investment trust in 1998.
The Company's principal business objective is to acquire, hold,
and manage mortgage assets and other authorized investments that
will generate net income for distribution to its shareholders.
The Company is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


INTERMEC INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Del. Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated merger-
related lawsuit pending in Delaware filed an amended complaint in
January 2013, according to Intermec, Inc.'s March 11, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 9, 2012, Intermec, Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Honeywell
International Inc. ("Honeywell") and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell ("Merger Sub").  Under the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Intermec,
with Intermec continuing as the surviving corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Honeywell (the "Merger").  After completion of
the Merger, Honeywell will own 100% of Intermec's outstanding
stock, and current stockholders will no longer have any interest
in Intermec.  If the Merger is completed, each share of Intermec
common stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time
of the Merger (other than shares held by the Company as treasury
stock and any shares owned by Honeywell or Merger Sub or any of
their respective wholly owned subsidiaries, or by holders properly
exercising appraisal rights under Delaware law), will be converted
at the effective time of the Merger into the right to receive
cash, without interest and subject to any required withholding of
taxes, in the amount of $10.00 per share.  Following completion of
the Merger, Intermec will be delisted from the New York Stock
Exchange (with there no longer being a public market for Intermec
common stock), and Intermec common stock will be deregistered
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On December 13, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of the Company's stockholders in Delaware Chancery
Court, docketed as Foster v. Intermec, Inc., et al., Case No.
8105-CS.  A week later, on December 20, 2012, another purported
class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's stockholders was
filed in Delaware Chancery Court, docketed as Reeder v. Intermec,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8137-CS.  On December 28, 2012, a third
purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's
stockholders was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, docketed as Liu
v. Intermec, Inc., et al., Case No. 8161-CS.  On January 10, 2013,
the three Delaware cases were consolidated as In re Intermec, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8137-CS, and lead counsel was
appointed.  On January 24, 2013, lead counsel for the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by
failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage
in a fair sale process before approving the proposed acquisition
of Intermec by Honeywell.  Specifically, the lawsuits allege that
the consideration paid by Honeywell is grossly inadequate in light
of Intermec's recent performance.  The lawsuits also allege that
the process was designed to ensure that Honeywell had the only
opportunity to acquire the Company and that the use of certain
deal protection mechanisms precluded the Company from seeking out
competing offers.  The lawsuits also allege that Intermec's
preliminary and definitive proxy statements omit certain
purportedly material information.  The lawsuits allege that the
Board was aided and abetted in its breaches of fiduciary duty by
Intermec and Honeywell.  Each of the complaints names the Company,
the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Honeywell
International Inc., and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Honeywell, as defendants.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek relief that includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the proposed merger, rescission to the extent the Merger terms
have already been implemented, damages for the breaches of
fiduciary duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  There can be no
assurance, however, with regard to the outcome of these lawsuits.

Intermec, Inc. -- http://www.intermec.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Everett, Washington.  The Company
designs, develops, integrates, and sells wired and wireless
automated identification and data collection solutions through its
suite of products, voice technologies and related software and
services.  The Company's solutions products are designed for
rugged environments and to maintain connectivity, preserve
computing capability and retain data despite harsh conditions and
heavy use.


INTERMEC INC: Awaits Ruling on Injunction Bid in Washington Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intermec, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction in the consolidated merger-related
lawsuit pending in Washington, according to the Company's
March 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 9, 2012, Intermec, Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Honeywell
International Inc. ("Honeywell") and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell ("Merger Sub").  Under the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Intermec,
with Intermec continuing as the surviving corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Honeywell (the "Merger").  After completion of
the Merger, Honeywell will own 100% of Intermec's outstanding
stock, and current stockholders will no longer have any interest
in Intermec.  If the Merger is completed, each share of Intermec
common stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time
of the Merger (other than shares held by the Company as treasury
stock and any shares owned by Honeywell or Merger Sub or any of
their respective wholly owned subsidiaries, or by holders properly
exercising appraisal rights under Delaware law), will be converted
at the effective time of the Merger into the right to receive
cash, without interest and subject to any required withholding of
taxes, in the amount of $10.00 per share.  Following completion of
the Merger, Intermec will be delisted from the New York Stock
Exchange (with there no longer being a public market for Intermec
common stock), and Intermec common stock will be deregistered
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On December 13, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, Washington, docketed as NECA-IBEW Pension Trust
Fund (The Decatur Plan) v. Intermec, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-2-
01841-1.  Five days later, on December 18, 2012, another purported
class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's stockholders was
filed in the Superior Court of Snohomish County, docketed as
Settle v. Intermec, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-2-09793-1.  The next
day, on December 19, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of the Company's stockholders was filed in the Superior
Court of King County, Washington, docketed as Grauel v. Barnes,
Case No. 12-2-40170-5 SEA.  Intermec moved to stay the Snohomish
County actions in favor of the consolidated action in Delaware but
the motion was denied by the Superior Court of Snohomish County on
January 11, 2013.  The Superior Court consolidated the Snohomish
County cases under the name, In re Intermec, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-2-01841-1, and lead counsel was
appointed.  On January 11, 2013, the King County case was
transferred to Snohomish County for the purpose of being
consolidated into the In re Intermec, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.
On February 24, 2013, the Court entered a stipulated
confidentiality order.  On February 28, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On March 1, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.  On March 8, 2013,
the defendants filed a brief in opposition to the preliminary
injunction motion.  A preliminary injunction hearing was set for
March 15, 2013, in the Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish
County.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by
failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage
in a fair sale process before approving the proposed acquisition
of Intermec by Honeywell.  Specifically, the lawsuits allege that
the consideration paid by Honeywell is grossly inadequate in light
of Intermec's recent performance.  The lawsuits also allege that
the process was designed to ensure that Honeywell had the only
opportunity to acquire the Company and that the use of certain
deal protection mechanisms precluded the Company from seeking out
competing offers.  The lawsuits also allege that Intermec's
preliminary and definitive proxy statements omit certain
purportedly material information.  The lawsuits allege that the
Board was aided and abetted in its breaches of fiduciary duty by
Intermec and Honeywell.  Each of the complaints names the Company,
the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Honeywell
International Inc., and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Honeywell, as defendants.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek relief that includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the proposed merger, rescission to the extent the Merger terms
have already been implemented, damages for the breaches of
fiduciary duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  There can be no
assurance, however, with regard to the outcome of these lawsuits.

Intermec, Inc. -- http://www.intermec.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Everett, Washington.  The Company
designs, develops, integrates, and sells wired and wireless
automated identification and data collection solutions through its
suite of products, voice technologies and related software and
services.  The Company's solutions products are designed for
rugged environments and to maintain connectivity, preserve
computing capability and retain data despite harsh conditions and
heavy use.


INTL FCSTONE: July 16 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
According to StreetInsider.com, in May 2012 the parties to INTL
FCStone Inc.'s class action lawsuit reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter subject to court approval.  The
court has now set a hearing for July 16, 2013 to review this
matter.  If approved by the court, the proposed settlement, after
considering insurance, would be at no cost to INTL FCStone.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Facing 7 Class Suits Over Leucadia Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Group LLC Cintas said in a Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, that seven putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in New York and Delaware
concerning the merger transactions whereby Jefferies Group became
a wholly owned subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation.

According to Jefferies, "The class actions, filed on behalf of our
shareholders prior to the merger transactions, name as defendants
Jefferies Group, Inc., the members of the board of directors of
Jefferies Group, Inc., Leucadia and, in certain of the actions,
certain merger-related subsidiaries. The actions allege that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger transactions by engaging in a flawed process and agreeing
to sell Jefferies Group, Inc. for inadequate consideration
pursuant to an agreement that contains improper deal protection
terms. The actions allege that Jefferies Group, Inc. and Leucadia
aided and abetted the directors' breach of fiduciary duties."

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation,"
Jefferies said.

New York-based Jefferies operates in two business segments,
Capital Markets and Asset Management. Capital Markets includes its
securities, commodities, futures and foreign exchange trading and
investment banking activities, which provides the research, sales,
trading and origination effort for various equity, fixed income
and advisory products and services. Asset Management provides
investment management services to various private investment
funds, separate accounts and mutual funds.

Jefferies Group, through a series of merger transactions, became a
wholly owned subsidiary of Leucadia on March 1, 2013.


KB HOME: Still Facing 8 Actions Over Defective Chinese Drywall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, California-based homebuilder KB Home disclosed in a
Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9,
that as of February 28, the Company was a defendant in eight
lawsuits relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in
China.

The Company said, "Seven of the lawsuits are 'omnibus' class
actions purportedly filed on behalf of numerous homeowners
asserting claims for damages against drywall manufacturers,
homebuilders and other parties in the supply chain of the
allegedly defective drywall material."

KB Home is also a defendant in one lawsuit brought in Florida
state court by individual homeowners.

The Company relates that on February 7, 2013, a final global
settlement of claims relating to the allegedly defective drywall
material, including the seven omnibus class actions in which we
were named as a defendant, was approved by the federal court judge
overseeing a multidistrict litigation case -- In re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2047). The
global settlement resolved all current claims against us and bars
any future claims against all participating defendants, including
us.  Our total obligation as a participating defendant under the
global settlement was $.3 million, which we paid on March 25,
2013.  We also expect to receive certain amounts under the global
settlement in 2013 based on repairs we made to homes of certain
settlement class members."

"The plaintiffs in the Florida state court case opted out of the
global settlement, and we will defend that case.  While the
ultimate outcome of that case is uncertain, based on the current
status of the proceedings, we do not believe the outcome will be
material to our consolidated financial statements."


L & L ENERGY: Defends Securities Suits in Washington and Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
L & L Energy, Inc., is defending itself and certain of its
officers and directors against securities lawsuits pending in
Washington and Nevada, according to the Company's March 11, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

On August 26, 2011, a federal securities law class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain officers and
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former
officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on
behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased the common
stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009, through
August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the
"Securities Class Action"), alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934  by filing materially  false and misleading reports and
financial statements with the SEC from August 2009 to July  2011.
On December 15, 2011, the court appointed Gregg Irvin as lead
plaintiff, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a second
amended complaint on February 8 and March 2, 2012, respectively,
naming four other current and former directors as defendants
(i.e., Shirley Kiang, Robert Lee, Dennis Bracy and Robert Okun).

On November 4, 2011, a complaint was filed by Larew P. Stouffer,
in a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company,
which is a  nominal defendant, against certain its officers and/or
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson,
Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) and
certain former officers and/or directors (i.e., Edward L. Dowd,
Andrew M. Leitch, Robert Okun, Joseph J. Borich, Jung Mei Wang and
David Lin) in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada for Carson City (the "Stouffer Derivative Lawsuit"),
alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the
Company and its shareholders, wasted corporate assets, were
unjustly enriched , and committed other wrongful acts.

On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filed by Russell L. Bush,
in a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company,
which is a  nominal defendant, against its existing directors
(i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson, Robert W.
Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
(the "Bush Derivative Lawsuit", with the Stouffer Derivative
Lawsuit, the "Derivative Lawsuits"), alleging that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The Company has notified its insurance carrier of the Potential
Class Action and the Derivative Lawsuits.  The Company has
retained outside legal counsel.

The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of any
potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome.  As such,
as of January 31, 2013, the Company has not accrued any liability
in connection with potential losses from legal proceedings.

On April 23, 2012, the Company and Dickson V. Lee and Ian G.
Robinson filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action.
Proceedings in the Derivative Lawsuits were stayed pending the
court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

On December 3, 2012, the United States District Court, Western
District of Washington at Seattle granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Securities Class Action lawsuit, and gave the
plaintiff thirty days in which to seek the court's permission to
file another amended complaint.

On January 2, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.  Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties,
the court granted such leave, and on February 4, 2013, plaintiff
filed a third amended complaint on behalf of a proposed class of
all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company during
the period August 13, 2009, through August 2, 2011, inclusive, and
who were damaged thereby, against the Company, certain officers
and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a
former officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang), alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 by filing materially false and misleading
reports and financial statements with the SEC from August 2009 to
July 2011.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and an order entered by
the court, the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiff's third
amended complaint was due April 12, 2013.  Proceedings in the
Derivative Lawsuits continue to be stayed.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.

L & L Energy, Inc. ("L&L" and/or the "Company") was incorporated
in Nevada, and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.  Effective
on January 4, 2010, the State of Nevada approved the Company's
name change from L&L International Holdings, Inc. to L & L Energy,
Inc.  The Company is a coal (energy) company, and started its
operations in 1995.  Coal sales are generated entirely in China,
from coal mining, clean coal washing, and coal wholesale
operations.  At the present time, the Company conducts its coal
(energy) operations in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces, located in
Southwest China.


LENNAR CORP: To Settle 40 Drywall Claims as Part of Louisiana MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miami, Florida-based Lennar Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, that the
litigation, that as of February 28, the Company has identified
approximately 1,010 homes delivered in Florida primarily during
its 2006 and 2007 fiscal years that are confirmed to have had
defective Chinese drywall and resulting damage.  This represents a
small percentage of homes the Company delivered nationally (1.2%)
during those fiscal years. Defective Chinese drywall is an
industry-wide issue as other homebuilders have publicly disclosed
that they have experienced similar issues with defective Chinese
drywall.  Based on its efforts to date, the Company has not
identified defective Chinese drywall in homes delivered by the
Company outside of Florida. The Company has offered to replace
defective Chinese drywall when it has been found in homes the
Company has built, and has done so in substantially all affected
homes.  Drywall claims for approximately 40 of the 1,010 homes
will be resolved through settlement of the drywall multi-district
class action litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.


MARCUS CORP: Goodman Suit Against Platinum Condominium Now Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Marcus Corporation, the Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based owner of
movie theatre, hotels and resorts businesses, said in a Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, that the
purported class action lawsuit, Goodman, et al. v. Platinum
Condominium Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-957 (D. Nev.), is now
closed.

On December 5, 2008, the class action complaint was filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County against
Platinum LLC. On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a
summons and a copy of an amended complaint. The amended complaint
also named another subsidiary of the Company, Marcus Management
Las Vegas, LLC ("Marcus Management LV"), as a defendant.
Subsequently, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV removed the
case to the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. The amended complaint in Goodman sought an unspecified
amount of damages and alleged violations of federal and Nevada
law, and that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV made various
misrepresentations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa
development in Las Vegas, Nevada.

On June 29, 2009, both Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV moved
to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On March 29,
2010, the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, and dismissed most of the claims against
Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV without prejudice. On April
28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which
Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV answered, in part, and moved
to dismiss, in part. On September 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint that named
Marcus Hotels, Inc. ("Marcus Hotels") as an additional defendant.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the motion to file a
third amended complaint and denied the motion to dismiss the
second amended Complaint as moot. On April 14, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint which Platinum LLC,
Marcus Management LV, and Marcus Hotels answered, in part, and
moved to dismiss, in part. On January 11, 2011, the plaintiffs
filed a motion asking the court to certify the case as a class
action. Defendants objected to that motion in a response filed on
February 11, 2011.

On September 2, 2011, the court denied the motion for class
certification and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the fraud
claims in the third amended complaint. On September 23, 2011 the
defendants filed a motion to reconsider the court's ruling on
the motion to dismiss and dismiss three additional claims. On
March 12, 2012, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all
of the remaining claims. On April 10, 2012, the court granted the
defendants' motion for reconsideration and dismissed three more of
the plaintiffs' claims, leaving only claims for the sale of
unregistered securities under Nevada law and negligent
misrepresentation.

On June 28, 2012, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
case at a mediation and have executed a settlement agreement
calling for the defendants to pay a total of $295,000. On
August 2, 2012, the District Court entered an order dismissing the
case with prejudice on the stipulation of the parties.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP on April 10 disclosed that it has filed a
class action securities lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of Navistar International Corporation common stock
during the period of November 3, 2010 through August 1, 2012.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition and business prospects.  Prior to
the Class Period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had
adopted new emission regulations on 2010 model trucks.  Two
primary engine technologies were advocated to meet the new
standards.  One was Exhaust Gas Recirculation and the other
Selective Catalytic Reduction.  Navistar "bet the ranch" on
developing EGR technology while SCR technology, a proven
alternative, was used by its competitors to meet the new
standards.  Navistar represented that its new EGR technology was
operative and that superior engines using EGR were ready or
imminent for sale.  By the beginning of the Class Period, however,
it was clear internally that the Company's strategy of achieving
product superiority was not working.  Despite $700 million spent
on developing its EGR engine, the Company had not applied for
certification of the EPA emissions standard 10 months after the
EPA standards became effective.  To conceal adverse facts from
Navistar's investors and customers during the Class Period
defendants repeatedly stated that Navistar had achieved its
engineering advancement and had an EPA-compliant EGR engine ready
for certification.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
the price of Navistar common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $70.17 per
share on April 26, 2011.

In July 2012, Navistar admitted its failure to achieve an EPA-
compliant EGR engine and announced it was adopting the same SCR
technology of its competitors.  On August 2, 2012, Navistar issued
a press release announcing that it was withdrawing its full-year
fiscal 2012 guidance.  Further, the Company had received a formal
letter of inquiry from the SEC involving an investigation of
various accounting and disclosure matters.  As a result of this
news, the price of Navistar's common stock dropped from a closing
price of $24.77 per share on August 1, 2012 to $21.44 per share on
August 2, 2012, a decline of approximately 13% in one trading day.

The complaint alleges that the true facts known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public included: (a) Navistar's EGR
process for achieving compliance with EPA standards was
unsuccessful and Navistar would need to adopt an alternative plan
and pay penalties to the EPA, incurring enormous costs; (b)
Navistar knew it did not have the trucks ready to satisfy 2010 EPA
standards though indicating otherwise; and (c) Navistar's filings
with the SEC contained incomplete and misleading disclosures.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of
Navistar common stock during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is
represented by Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, the highly regarded and
experienced law firm litigating securities cases throughout the
country.

As a member of the Class described above, you may, not later than
May 20, 2013, file a lawsuit and/or move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff for the Class.  If you choose to do nothing you
will remain an absent class member.  Your sharing in a recovery is
not, however, affected by the decision to be a lead plaintiff.  If
you want to discuss this matter or your alternatives and rights,
please contact our office at 877-493-5366 (ask for Michael Plavi),
by fax to 619-238-5425, or by writing Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP,
501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, or via e-mail
at jrk@classaction.com

Contact: FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK, LLP
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         E-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Class Action May Take Years
------------------------------------------------------
Jarrett Bell, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that if the
class-action lawsuit brought forward by more than 4,000 former
players against the National Football League ever goes to trial,
alleging negligence and fraud in handling concussions, it will
take years.  The discovery phase alone could extend for two,
three, maybe four years.

Kevin Turner has come to grips with the possibility that he may
not live to see the end of it.  It goes a lot deeper than the
notion that nothing is promised for any of us.

Mr. Turner, 43, once a hard-charging fullback, is battling
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), a neurological condition that
has weakened his upper body, disrupted his breathing and sapped
his voice.

"To be honest . . .  it may be down the road, when I'm gone," Mr.
Turner, a father of three, said on April 9, pondering the finish
line of the legal case.  "But maybe my kids will benefit from it."

There is no cure for ALS, nor is there any trace of the disease in
Mr. Turner's family's history, he says, which is why he believes
his affliction was caused by the repetitive head trauma of
football.  He has no idea how many concussions he endured, but
insists that he was twice knocked out cold and never warned about
long-time risks, which is one of the pillar principles of the
plaintiffs' case.  Mr. Turner played nine seasons with the
Philadelphia Eagles and New England Patriots from 1992-1999, and a
decade after he retired he assumed his neck problems stemmed from
an old football injury.

So he had neck surgery.

"That didn't work," Mr. Turner said.

More than a year after symptoms surfaced, he was diagnosed with
ALS in May 2010.  He estimates that his limp hands and arms have
about 15% of the strength that they once possessed.  His lower
extremities remain strong, but his condition is deteriorating.
The voice started going about six months ago.

So he had to be in federal judge Anita Brody's courtroom during
the oral arguments for the pivotal preemption hearing, traveling
from his home in Birmingham, Ala.  Judge Brody's ruling, expected
by the summer, will determine whether the case goes forward in its
present form.

Mr. Turner is undoubtedly one of the faces of litigation.
Although he needed a friend to accompany him and help him with
everything from putting on his pants to brushing his teeth, he
says he had to be there to support the team of attorneys, "to show
them who they are working for, and what types of things are out
there."

There are many faces, some of whom came to court and provided a
human element to the legal wrangling.  The widow of former Atlanta
Falcons safety Ray Easterling, Mary Ann, sobbed when she met the
media after the hearing.  Her husband was among the first to file
suit against the NFL, but committed suicide in April 2012 and was
diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a
degenerative brain disease linked to repetitive head trauma.
Dorsey Levens, the former running back, still looks so cut that it
is easy to imagine him in the Green Bay Packers backfield.  He
says he suffers from insomnia, irritability and mood swings.

Mr. Levens, who played 11 seasons, remembers entering the NFL in
1994 and looking up to Turner.

"He blocked for one of my old friends, Ricky Watters," Mr. Levens
said.  "So I really kept an eye on Kevin.  To see him now, it's
heart-breaking. But that could have been me.  There's not enough
information where we know which guys are going to suffer."

The gray area of concussion research naturally extends to the
legal skirmish.  David Frederick, arguing for the players, says
the NFL spread misinformation and in other instances failed to
reveal what it knew about concussions.  Paul Clement, the former
U.S. solicitor general who led the NFL's effort, maintained the
lawsuit is essentially a dispute stemming from the collective
bargaining agreement, so it should be settled in arbitration.

Mr. Clement had the tougher outing, unable to cite specific CBA
language where long-term risks to concussions are addressed.

If the case continues, debate issues -- in or out of court --
could explore the acceptance of inherent risks of playing
football.  Or whether the NFL should be liable for neurological
problems that may have originated on another level, such as
college or high school.  Or whether the NFL players union did
enough to protect its members.

There's a lot to sort out.  But Mr. Turner already considers one
victory has been achieved with increased awareness about
concussions, and a culture change in the NFL that includes return-
to-play protocol that didn't exist when he played.

Mr. Turner feels that for too long, the NFL refused to acknowledge
a link between head injuries and long-term neurological issues.

"Believe me," he said, "if there was no lawsuit . . . they'd still
be saying, 'No, no no.' "

Yet there is a lawsuit.  And it appears there will be a lot of
explaining to do.


NEW YORK: Class Action Challenges "Taxi of Tomorrow" Bidding
------------------------------------------------------------
Charisma L. Miller, Esq., writing for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle,
reports that a federal court in New York City cleared the way for
a major class action lawsuit brought by New Yorkers who use
wheelchairs to challenge the "Taxi of Tomorrow."

Judge Daniels of the Southern District of New York District Court
allowed the plaintiffs to supplement and amend their complaint to
include challenges to the legality of the Taxi and Limousine
Commission's (TLC) selection of the Nissan NV200 van as the
exclusive taxi vehicle of New York City for the next decade.

The NV200 van is not accessible to New York City's 170,000
residents with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs.  The
plaintiffs' supplemental amended complaint alleges that use of the
NV200 van as a taxi vehicle violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Marty Needelman, chief counsel to Brooklyn Legal Services
Corporation A, noted, "This litigation is both important in
working to protect the disabled and at the same time relieve them
and the state of the huge respective inconvenience and cost
associated with "Access-A-Ride."

During the bidding process for car companies to manufacture the
Taxi of Tomorrow, there was hope that the manufacturing would
occur in Brooklyn.

The Turkish manufacturer Karsan submitted a bid to manufacture the
cars in the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal.  Karsan, one of three
finalists for the Taxi of Tomorrow contract, was the only
manufacturer pledging to build cars in America.

"For the city to award a billion-dollar contract so foreign jobs
can be created would simply be wrong when the jobs can be created
right here in Brooklyn as part of the mayor's waterfront
development," Karsan's USA President Bill Wachtel told the New
York Daily News.

In addition to bringing manufacturing back to, and creating jobs
in, Brooklyn, Karsan promised to manufacture taxis that would be
wheelchair-accessible.

"Had the city gone with Karsan, a company ensuring that it would
make new taxi vehicles that were wheelchair-accessible, this
current lawsuit would potentially be moot," said Julie Pinover, an
attorney with Disability Rights Advocates.

After many years of struggling with a taxi fleet that is almost
completely inaccessible to wheelchair users, a coalition of
disability organizations and individuals with disabilities filed
the suit in January of 2011.  Plaintiffs are represented by
Disability Rights Advocates, which is a non-profit legal center
that specializes in class action litigation on behalf of people
with disabilities.

In spite of repeated broken promises of improvement by the TLC,
less than 2% of medallion taxis in New York City are currently
accessible to wheelchair users.  With the Taxi of Tomorrow
arriving on the streets in 2013 if there is no judicial action,
this discriminatory taxi system will be perpetuated for the next
decade.

The TLC's agreement with Nissan to provide the official taxi
vehicle requires, for the next 10 years, that unrestricted
medallion holders must purchase the Nissan NV200 van but does not
require that the Nissan Van include a ramp or a lift which would
make it useable by wheelchair users.

Under Title III of the ADA, when a provider of taxi service
purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a
van), the vehicle is required to be accessible.  As a licensing
and regulatory agency, the TLC has an obligation to issue rules
that comply with the law.

However, the TLC's approval of the non-accessible version of the
Nissan Van means that taxi medallion owners who follow the TLC's
rules will be in violation of Title III of the ADA.

"The TLC had a golden opportunity to make taxi service available
to thousands of people who critically need public transportation.
However, instead, the TLC chose to affirmatively discriminate
against persons with disabilities by selecting an inaccessible
vehicle and by perpetuating this discrimination for the next
decade," said Mary-Lee Smith, managing attorney at Disability
Rights Advocates.

"The TLC's selection of an inaccessible van as the Taxi of
Tomorrow is blatant discrimination.  It means that I will continue
to be denied the opportunity to access taxi service in New York
City, compromising my work and personal life and my health and
well-being," said plaintiff Simi Linton.

"We are pleased with the judge's decision to allow us to challenge
the selection of an inaccessible van as the Taxi of Tomorrow.
Absent judicial intervention, men, women and children with
disabilities will continue to be excluded from accessing New York
City's taxi fleet," said Plaintiffs' attorney, Sid Wolinsky,
director of litigation at Disability Rights Advocates.


S1 CORP: June 4 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP disclosed that the settlement hearing in
S1 Corporation shareholders litigation is to be held on June 4,
2013 at 10:00 a.m.

The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware has issued the
following Order:

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE S1 CORPORATION) CONSOLIDATED

SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION) C.A. No. 6771-VCP

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

TO:

ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF S1
CORPORATION, EITHER OF RECORD OR BENEFICIALLY, AT ANY POINT
BETWEEN AND INCLUDING JUNE 27, 2011 AND FEBRUARY 13, 2012, AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties in the above-captioned
class action lawsuit have entered into a proposed settlement of
the Action.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013, a
hearing will be held on June 4, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County
Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.  The
purpose of the Settlement Hearing is: (a) to determine whether the
Court should approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (b) to determine
whether the Court should finally certify the Action pursuant to
Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2);
(c) to determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have
adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action;
(d) to determine whether the Court should enter a Final Order and
Judgment, dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted in the
Action and releasing the claims against defendants; (e) to
consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by S1, its insurers or its
successors; (f) to hear and determine any objections to the
proposed Settlement or the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (g) to consider
other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Action and Settlement address claims alleging that S1 and
members of its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with (i) S1 entering into a definitive transaction
agreement with ACI Worldwide, Inc., pursuant to which S1 would
merge with a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACI; (ii) a prior
definitive merger agreement with Fundtech Ltd., dated June 26,
2011, pursuant to which S1 would have merged with Fundtech; and
(iii) certain of the Company's public disclosures regarding these
transactions.  Each of the defendants has denied and continues to
deny all allegations of wrongdoing and denies liability on the
claims asserted in the Action.

In consideration for the full and final settlement and dismissal
with prejudice of the Action and the release of any and all of
plaintiffs' claims, defendants agreed to and did make Supplemental
Disclosures in an amended Schedule 14D-9, filed on October 25,
2011, as demanded by plaintiffs in connection with their
prosecution of the Action.  Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel
intend to petition the Court for an award of fees and expenses in
an amount not to exceed $440,000.00 in fees and expenses in
connection with the Settlement of the Action.  Defendants have
agreed not to oppose the petition for an award of fees and
expenses, provided that it does not seek an amount in excess of
$440,000.00.

If the Settlement is approved, the Action will be dismissed with
prejudice and the defendants will be released by plaintiffs from
all claims that were or could have been alleged in the Action or
which arise out of or relate to the Fundtech Transaction, the ACI
Transaction, any of the transactions contemplated thereby or any
public disclosures, statements or filings made in connection with
any of the foregoing; however, such release will exclude any
claims (i) to enforce the Settlement; (ii) for appraisal in
connection with the ACI Transaction under 8 Del. C. Sec. 262; or
(iii) alleging violations of applicable state and/or federal
securities laws relating to the material accuracy and truthfulness
of ACI's public disclosures related to the ACI Transaction.

ANY INVESTOR WHO OWNED S1 COMMON STOCK AT ANY POINT BETWEEN AND
INCLUDING JUNE 27, 2011 AND FEBRUARY 13, 2012, AND WHO WISHES TO
CONTEST EITHER THE SETTLEMENT OR THE APPLICATION FOR FEES AND
EXPENSES BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL, MAY DO SO BY FOLLOWING THE
PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN SECTION IX OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF
PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER
LITIGATION.  Copies of the Amended Notice, as well as the Amended
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, are
available upon request directed to:

          S1 Corporation Litigation
          c/o Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 1607
          Blue Bell, PA 19422

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.

Dated: April 10, 2013


SCHNUCKS: Faces Class Action Over Payment Card Fraud
----------------------------------------------------
Georgina Gustin, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports
that a lawsuit has been filed against Schnucks, accusing the
Maryland Heights-based grocery chain of inadequate security
measures and failing to warn customers about a security breach
that has led to widespread fraudulent charges.

The lead plaintiff, Michael Bannister of St. Louis, claims that
Schnuck Markets Inc., "despite first learning of the data breach
on or about March 15, 2013 . . . did not inform the public of the
data breach until March 30, 2013 -- two weeks later -- via the
issuance of a press release."

On April 10, Schnucks clarified to the Post-Dispatch that although
the company was aware of some compromised cards on March 15, it
was not until March 19 that it hired an investigator, Virginia-
based Mandiant, to look into the breach.

"Telling us there's a problem with a few cards and confirming a
security breach are different things," Lori Willis, a Schnucks
spokeswoman, said.

The company informed the Post-Dispatch of the breach on March 22.

Under state law, a company that has access to personal and
financial information has to disclose that a breach of information
has occurred.  The lawsuit, which was filed in St. Louis Circuit
Court and which seeks class-action status, accuses Schnucks of
violating that law.

But only financial information -- including payment card numbers
and expiration dates -- was compromised, meaning the rules of
notification did not apply in this case, Ms. Willis said on
April 10.  Hackers lifted information from the digitally formatted
magnetic stripes on the back of cards, which do not contain names,
she said.

Data security experts say that companies may not become aware of
hacks until months after they happen, and it is unclear when the
data were accessed.  Schnucks has not responded to specific
questions about when or how the data were breached, saying it did
not want to provide a "roadmap" for other hackers.

On March 30, two days after Mandiant located the breach, Schnucks
issued a news release saying the problem had been "found and
contained."  On April 7, the company issued another statement
saying it was continuing to investigate individual stores to
determine where the breach occurred.  It has not received any
reports of an ongoing or subsequent breach, the company said.
Although the breach is contained, according to the company,
Schnucks shoppers could see fraudulent charges on their cards as
data stolen some time ago may not have hit the black market yet.

Typically, the magnetic stripe data is encoded onto counterfeit
cards, which are then sold and used at businesses from gas
stations to big box stores.  Fraudulent charges have been
identified around the country.

Experts interviewed by the Post-Dispatch say the hackers probably
accessed the company's system via malicious software, or malware,
which contains code that strips information and sends it to an
external Internet address.  That malware can enter a system at
various points, making its way through a company's main computer
server or an individual server at a store.  Much of that type of
hacking is done by criminal gangs, many based in Eastern Europe.

According to industry standards, data are required to be encrypted
as they travel through a system, but there are points along the
system where data may not be encrypted, making them vulnerable to
attack. Magnetic stripe data -- of the type stolen in this case,
according to Schnucks -- is not permitted to be stored in a
database.

The lawsuit filed on April 8 accuses Schnucks of not being in
compliance with the industry standards that forbid storing such
data.  But Schnucks said in a statement on April 7 that it was
compliant with those standards, having undergone the required
annual audit in November.

Attorney Geoff Meyerkord, of St. Louis-based Meyerkord &
Meyerkord, who filed the suit, was attending a conference
Wednesday and left a voice message in response to a call for
comment.  "In as much as this is a new filing, we will await the
defendant's response to the suit," Mr. Meyerkord said.  "As the
action progresses, more information will likely become available
and additional comment will be given at that time."

The lawsuit seeks to represent all Missourians who used their
payment cards at Schnucks.


SOMERSET HILLS: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Somerset Hills Bancorp is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in New Jersey, according to the Company's March 11, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 29, 2013, the Company and Lakeland Bancorp, Inc.
("Lakeland"), the parent company of Lakeland Bank, announced that
the companies have entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company
will be merged with and into Lakeland, with Lakeland as the
surviving bank holding company.  The Merger Agreement provides
that the shareholders of Somerset Hills Bancorp will receive, at
their election, for each outstanding share of Somerset Hills
Bancorp common stock that they own at the effective time of the
merger, either 1.1962 shares of Lakeland common stock or $12.00 in
cash, subject to proration as described in the Merger Agreement,
so that 90% of the aggregate merger consideration will be shares
of Lakeland common stock and 10% will be cash.  The Merger
Agreement also provides that immediately after the merger of the
Company into Lakeland, the Bank will merge with and into Lakeland
Bank, with Lakeland Bank as the surviving bank.

On February 8, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and
the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Somerset County, seeking class action status and asserting
that the Company and the members of its Board had violated their
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the
proposed merger with Lakeland Bancorp, Inc.  The litigation is in
its very early stages, and the Company's time to answer has not
yet run.  The Company believes this complaint is without merit,
and intends to vigorously defend this complaint.

Somerset Hills Bancorp -- http://www.somersethillsbank.com/-- is
a one-bank holding company incorporated in New Jersey in January
2000 to serve as the holding company for Somerset Hills Bank.  The
Company's only significant operation is its investment in the
Bank, and its main office is located in Bernardsville, New Jersey.


SOUTHERN STAR: Price Litigation I & II Remain Open
--------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2012,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2013, Southern Star Central Corp. disclosed that its wholly owned
subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., continues to
face the putative class actions:

     -- Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
        Case No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens County,
        Kansas, or Price Litigation I; and

     -- Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
        Case No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens County,
        Kansas, or Price Litigation II

Price Litigation I was filed May 28, 1999.  The named plaintiffs
have sued over 50 defendants, including Central. Asserting
theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and
unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition
alleges that the defendants have under measured the volume of, and
therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained
from or measured for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages.

On August 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.  Despite a denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of
their original motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs
continued to seek the certification of a class. The Plaintiffs'
motion seeking class certification for a second time was fully
briefed and the Court heard oral argument on the motion on April
1, 2005. On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009. The defendants,
including Central, filed a response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010. The
Plaintiffs filed a reply and oral argument, which was presented
before a different judge, was heard on February 10, 2010.

By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier denial of class
certification. The Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory
review of the March 31, 2010 order, but through their counsel they
have initiated certain discovery to which Central and other
defendants have objected.

In late June of 2011, certain defendants other than Central filed
motions for summary judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling
on the legal issue of whether or not Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy
claim could be based upon their underlying unjust enrichment
claim.

In January of 2012, the Court issued an order concluding that
under Kansas law a conspiracy claim could be so based. These
defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of that ruling, but
the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their request on February
23, 2012.

According to Southern Star, it is unknown whether Plaintiffs will
follow through on discovery and/or otherwise proceed with the
litigation on a non-class basis. Central cannot predict the
outcome of this litigation or estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses, if any.

Price Litigation II was filed May 12, 2003.  The named Plaintiffs
from Case No. 99 C 30 have sued the same defendants, including
Central.  Asserting substantially identical legal and/or equitable
theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have under measured the British thermal units, or Btu,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they
have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages. On
November 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central. The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification,
along with Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument
on the motion April 1, 2005.

On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider
that ruling on October 2, 2009. The defendants, including Central,
filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on January 18, 2010. The Plaintiffs filed a reply
and oral argument, which was presented before a different judge,
was heard on February 10, 2010.

By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier denial of class
certification. The Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory
review of the March 31, 2010 order, but through their counsel they
have initiated certain discovery to which Central and other
defendants have objected.

In late June of 2011, certain defendants other than Central filed
motions for summary judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling
on the legal issue of whether or not Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy
claim could be based upon their underlying unjust enrichment
claim.

In January of 2012, the Court issued an order concluding that
under Kansas law a conspiracy claim could be so based. These
defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of that ruling, but
the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their request on February
23, 2012.

Southern also said it is unknown whether Plaintiffs will follow
through on discovery and/or otherwise proceed with the litigation
on a non-class basis.  Central also cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses,
if any.

Central is an interstate natural gas transportation company that
owns and operates a natural gas pipeline system, including
facilities for natural gas transmission and natural gas storage,
with office headquarters in Owensboro, Kentucky.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Fire Victim Testifies in Class Action Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Ellie Matthews and
her brother Sam were happily playing Guitar Hero as the Black
Saturday bushfires closed in on their Victorian home.

When a neighbor called about 1:00 p.m. to urge vigilance in the
scorching heat, Ms. Matthews said the pair found nothing on the
CFA Web site to concern them.  The decision not to evacuate their
family's St Andrews home cost Sam his life.  The 22-year-old was
one of 119 people who died in the February 2009 Kilmore East fire.

Ms. Matthews told a class action hearing the pair believed they
were safe when they did not see St Andrews mentioned in any CFA
warnings.

"If I had known . . . of the fire front coming through I never
would've left my brother there to die," she told the Victorian
Supreme Court on April 10.

"If we did receive a warning we would have been concerned."

Throughout the afternoon they checked the CFA Web site but
returned to the video game when they did not see any warnings
listed for St. Andrews, Ms. Matthews said.  The court heard they
enacted their fire plan about 3pm when the neighbor called a
second time.  When Ms. Matthews left for work about 4:45 p.m., Sam
was confident he had made appropriate preparations to defend the
house from an ember attack.

During cross-examination by Stephen O'Meara SC for the CFA,
Ms. Matthews was shown an image of the CFA Web site at around 1:30
p.m. that reported a fire "incident" in St. Andrews.

"It may well have been we checked the Web site before . . . that
was posted," Ms. Matthews said.

She said the pair did not see another St. Andrews incident listed
on the Web site at around 4:30 p.m.  She was also shown a warning
from the Web site at about 3:30 p.m. that stated the fire would
impact nearby Whittlesea within two hours.  But Ms. Matthews said
the pair believed the two-hour buffer zone meant they would still
have sufficient warning to evacuate if required.

"According to you it needs to mention St Andrews itself for you to
take action?" Mr. O'Meara asked Ms. Matthews.

"Or communities closer (to St. Andrews)," she replied.

Ms. Matthews' mother, Carol Matthews, is leading a class action of
more than 10,000 people suing SPI Electricity, claiming its
negligence in failing to maintain power lines that sparked the
blaze.  The group is also taking action against the CFA, Victoria
Police and the Department of Sustainability and Environment over
their failure to warn communities.

All defendants deny the allegations and are fighting the claims.


STEC INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $35.75 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that STEC Inc. has
agreed to settle a securities class action for $35.75 million
accusing the digital storage company of releasing misleading
information about its sales forecasts and intentionally inflating
its stock price, according to documents filed by plaintiffs in
California federal court on April 8.

The state of New Jersey, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and others submitted a memorandum in support of
their motion for final approval of a proposed settlement and
proposed allocation plan, among other things, saying they were
fair.


STONE STREET: Insurers Refuse Indemnification for Text Spam Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that National Fire
Insurance Co. of Hartford, Continental Casualty Co. and
Transportation Insurance Co. sued Stone Street Capital LLC in
Illinois state court on April 9, saying they owe no coverage to
the company in an underlying putative class action alleging it
sent unsolicited text messages to cellphones.  The insurers are
asking the court to declare that, under the policies they issued
Stone Street for various periods between 2008 and 2013, they have
no duty to defend or indemnify the company in Chris Paxton's suit.


THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Class Action Reaches Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Simms, writing for The Bottom Line, reports that some
California law school graduates are joining in class action suits
against law schools that allegedly provided misleading post-
graduate job data.

A little over a year ago, Anna Alaburda's groundbreaking class
action lawsuit against her Alma Mater, San Diego's Thomas
Jefferson School of Law (TJSL), reached the discovery phase.  This
opportunity to acquire evidence through civil procedures marked a
new frontier, unreached by any similar lawsuits at the time.

Ms. Alaburda's success did not stop in the discovery phase.
According to an October article in Law School Transparency, Thomas
Jefferson School of Law's former Assistant Director of Career
Services, Karen Grant, came clean under oath about fabricating
graduate employment data per the request of her boss, Laura
Weseley, TJSL's former Director of Career Services.

"Her allegations of a culture within American legal education
where fraudulent reporting is a legitimate strategy are sure to
reignite concerns about the quality of data that schools reports,"
the Law School Transparency article claims, "how schools present
data to the public, and whether the current level of public
investment in legal education is appropriate in light of this
culture."

These concerns have in fact been reignited and have resulted in an
onslaught of similar class action lawsuits across the country.
Some people have raised concerns about the true intent of those
filing the lawsuits and whether or not it is primarily for the
settlement money.

"I think some representatives are interested in declarative or
injunctive relief so that future law students don't run into the
same problems," said Jesse Strauss, one of the lead attorney's in
this fight against law schools, in response to those concerns.
"Some may be interested in monetary compensation because of their
high debt loads."

In July of 2011, Kurzon Strauss (now Kurzon LLP), a small New York
based law firm, found plaintiffs to file lawsuits against Thomas
M. Cooley Law School as well as New York Law School; however, both
cases were eventually dismissed by the trial courts in Michigan
and New York.

After complicated legal procedures took their toll, Jesse Strauss
opened Strauss Law PLLC, which, along with the Law Offices of
David Anziska, planned, not only to take the previous two law
school cases to the court of appeals, but also to sue 15
additional law schools via precedents set in Alaburda v. TJSL.

"Almost every law school in the country will be sued by the end of
2012," Strauss claimed in an October 2011 press conference. "[the
problem] isn't going away, and the legal academy isn't owning up
to it."

In February of this year, Strauss and Anziska announced their
partnership with six additional law firms across the country, from
California to Illinois to Florida.  They filed 12 lawsuits with
more than 50 law school graduate plaintiffs and announced plans to
sue anywhere from 20 to 25 law schools every few months.

Skepticism around the use of class action suits as the best
solution for regulating the legal education system and the
American Bar Association's ability to hold schools accountable
has been expressed throughout the course of this crisis.

"[We] wonder how the American Bar Association can continue to
stand by and watch," Staci Zaretsky of Abovethelaw.com said in her
October 2012 editorial.  "Law schools around the country continue
to put out employment statistics that even judges have
characterized as 'inherently untrustworthy.'"

Still some, such as Michael C. Sullivan, an attorney representing
the law schools, hold the prospective law students accountable for
their own misfortunes.

"What I find most ironic is that those individuals advertised
themselves to law schools as great critical thinkers," Sullivan
said of the law-school graduate plaintiffs in an interview with
the Los Angeles Times.  "Now they say they never considered the
possibility that employment might include part-time jobs."

Both sides have offered arguments, and it may be true that each
party should step up and take its share of responsibility and
accountability.  University of California, Santa Barbara senior
and prospective law school student Tahir Aimaq expressed a similar
view.

"The schools should be held accountable," Mr. Aimaq said.
"However, most students shouldn't believe the incredibly
consistent data that various law schools belt out and should call
the admissions office or career center of the school for the real
data."

With the fourth highest number of State Bar members, behind only
UC Los Angeles, UC Berkeley, and University of Southern
California, respectively, this is true for UCSB's undergraduates
as well.

If successful, these class-action suits could be used as an agent
of social change.

"If it means bringing awareness to potential law students and
teaching them to do their due diligence on law schools' employment
data," Mr. Aimaq said, "then yes [they could]."


TISHMAN SPEYER: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, co-lead counsel for the plaintiff tenants, on April 10
disclosed that Justice Richard B. Lowe, III, the Chief Justice of
the New York Appellate Term, First Department, has granted final
approval of the settlement in the landmark Roberts v. Tishman
Speyer case, also known as the Stuyvesant Town class action.

Because there were ultimately no tenant objections to the
settlement, which Justice Lowe had preliminarily approved last
November, the April 10 ruling effectively ends the litigation.  It
paves the way for approximately 27,500 tenants to receive
settlement checks, ranging from $150 to more than $100,000 for
some tenants, later this year.

The settlement approved on April 10 is by many magnitudes the
largest tenant settlement in United States history.  It also
continues rent stabilization through June 2020 for the 4,311
formerly decontrolled Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village
apartments.

The settlement sets aside $68.75 million to compensate class
members for rent overcharges from January 22, 2003, the start of
the class period, through December 31, 2011, the end of the
overcharge period.  Final data and calculations under a complex
rent reduction formula for the settlement revealed that the
tenants also saved an estimated $105 million in rent since 2009
under an interim settlement, bringing the total economic benefit
received to date by the tenant class to $173.25 million, $25
million more than lead counsel initially estimated last November.
Depending on future vacancy rates and market conditions, the
tenants could save as much as an additional $300 million by the
time their 2020 leases expire.

"This is a genuinely historic and well-deserved outcome, not only
for the nine brave tenants who risked losing their homes when they
stepped forward to challenge a longstanding practice of
deregulating rent stabilized apartments while simultaneously
receiving New York City J-51 tax breaks, but for all residents of
the truly special and unique Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village
community," said Alexander Schmidt of Wolf Haldenstein, one of the
plaintiffs' lead attorneys.  "I am grateful I had the opportunity
to help these courageous individuals right the wrong that had been
done to them," he added.

"The fact that there were ultimately no objections to the
settlement and only five tenants among the 27,500 class members
who opted out of it attests to how fair and reasonable the
settlement was for the class as a whole," noted his partner,
Daniel Krasner.  "I have been litigating class actions for 35
years, and I have never seen a settlement affecting so many people
be opposed by no one," he said.

"This settlement is an extraordinary recovery for our clients and
we couldn't be happier for them," Ronald Aranoff of Bernstein
Liebhard, another of the plaintiffs' lead attorneys said.

As to future rents, the settlement provides for a "Preferential
Rent" formula that will save tenants at least another $20 million,
and potentially up to $300 million, over the next eight years,
Mr. Aranoff added.

The settlement also continues rent stabilization through June 2020
for each of the 4,311 formerly decontrolled Stuyvesant Town and
Peter Cooper Village apartments at issue in the suit.  June 2020
is when the residential complexes' New York City "J-51" tax
benefits expire.  The New York Court of Appeals, the state's
highest court, found in October 2009 that the apartments had been
removed improperly from rent stabilization while the complexes
were receiving those tax benefits, which are available only for
rent stabilized buildings.

The current owners of the complexes contributed $58.25 million of
the $68.75 million cash component provided by the April 10
agreement.  Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company, the owner
until mid-November 2006, contributed $10.5 million.

The cash received and saved will not be the only benefits the
class members achieve as a result of this litigation, Schmidt
said.  "Class members will also retain the full protections of the
Rent Stabilization Law for the next eight years, including, most
importantly, the right to remain in their homes as long as they
remain stabilized."

The tenants who were overcharged will receive "refunds equaling at
least 100% and, most likely up to 110%, of their overcharges,"
Krasner said "and most or all of the attorneys' fees and costs are
expected to be paid from excess funds that will be left over after
all filed tenant claims are paid."  The $18.9 million in legal
fees to be paid from the settlement fund is less than 11% of the
$173.25 million recovered to date, "a very low percentage even by
today's standards," Mr. Krasner added.

The settlement agreement and other pertinent information about the
settlement and the litigation are available at
http://www.berdonclaims.com(click "Cases:  Current and Completed"
and click "Stuyvesant Town Class Action").

Media Contact for Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz:

Ned Steele                       Lisa King
E-mail: neds@mediaimpact.biz     lisak@mediaimpact.biz
Telephone: (m) 646-234-5070      Telephone: (m) 646-234-5080
           (o)  212-590-2313                (o) 212-590-2313


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Inks $2MM Accord in La. Policyholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal, citing Hurricane Katrina-Travelers Settlement
Administrator, reports that Travelers Insurance announced it has
reached a settlement with policyholders in Louisiana over property
damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The Hurricane Katrina-Travelers Settlement Administrator said the
proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved in a class
action lawsuit, Arthur v. The Standard Fire Insurance Co. and The
Travelers Indemnity Co., No. 09-7332, by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The complaint alleges that Travelers' handling of Katrina/Rita
claims arising out of the events above caused class members to
receive fewer benefits than those to which they were entitled.
Travelers denies all claims and liability stated in the complaint
but has agreed to establish a $2 million fund to settle the case.

Travelers also will pay separately attorneys' fees and expenses,
and the costs for notice and administration.  Class counsel will
request that the court award attorneys' fees and expenses of
$425,000, the Travelers announcement said.

Some class members will receive a detailed notice in the mail
about the settlement and don't need to do anything to participate.
Class members who do not receive a notice in the mail must submit
a claim by June 8, 2013.

Class members who wish to be excluded from the settlement must
submit a written request postmarked by June 8, 2013.  If they
exclude themselves, they will not receive any money and keep the
right to sue Travelers at their own expense.  Class members who do
not exclude themselves give up the right to sue Travelers.

Class members who want to object but stay in the settlement must
submit a written objection postmarked by July 3, 2013.  If the
settlement is approved and the objection is rejected, they will be
bound by all court orders.

For more information, visit --
http://www.KatrinaInsuranceSettlement.com-- call 1-866-665-8475,
or write to: Claims Administrator, PO Box 2980, Faribault, MN
55021-2980.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Credit Ratings Suits and Investigations Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits and investigations relating to credit ratings are pending
against UnionBanCal Corporation's parents, according to the
Company's March 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company says adverse changes to its credit ratings, reputation
or creditworthiness could have a negative effect on its
operations.  The Company generally funds its operations
independently of its parents, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ,
Ltd. (BTMU) and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG), and
believes its business is not necessarily closely related to the
business or outlook of BTMU or MUFG.  However, if BTMU and MUFG's
credit ratings or financial condition or prospects were to
decline, this could adversely affect the Company's credit rating
or harm its reputation or perceived creditworthiness.

On April 26, 2011, Standard and Poor's, while affirming its long-
term sovereign credit rating on Japanese government debt, changed
its outlook to negative from stable citing concerns about
anticipated increases in Japanese government debt due to
reconstruction costs in the aftermath of the large earthquake and
tsunami and lack of plans to deal with such increases.  In August
2011, Moody's downgraded Japan's credit rating one step to "Aa3",
in line with Standard & Poor's rating, and announced related
ratings downgrades for most major Japanese banks, including BTMU.
In May 2012, rating agency Fitch downgraded Japan's Sovereign
credit rating from "AA" to "A+".  In July 2012, the Fitch rating
agency downgraded the long-term credit ratings of the three
largest banks in Japan, including MUFG, from "A" to "A-"
reflecting concerns regarding the Japanese government's financial
ability to support the banking system.

At this time, the Company says it cannot predict further actions,
if any, which the rating agencies may take regarding the
Government of Japan, MUFG or BTMU, nor the ultimate effect of
these developments on the Company's credit rating.

BTMU and MUFG are also subject to regulatory oversight, review and
supervisory action (which can include fines or penalties) by
Japanese and U.S. regulatory authorities.  The Company's business
operations and expansion plans could be negatively affected by
regulatory concerns or supervisory action in the U.S. and in Japan
against BTMU or MUFG.

BTMU has received requests and subpoenas for information from
government agencies in some jurisdictions, including the United
States and Europe, which are conducting investigations into past
submissions made by panel members, including BTMU, to the bodies
that set various interbank offered rates.  BTMU is cooperating
with these investigations and has been conducting an internal
investigation.  Union Bank is not a member of any of these panels.
In addition, BTMU and other panel members have been named as
defendants in a number of civil lawsuits, including putative class
actions, in the United States relating to similar matters.  It is
currently not possible for the Company to predict the scope and
ultimate outcome of these investigations or lawsuits, including
any possible effect on the Company as a member of MUFG.

UnionBanCal Corporation -- http://www.unionbank/-- is a San
Francisco, California-based, financial holding and commercial bank
holding company whose major subsidiary, Union Bank, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  Union Bank provides a wide range of financial
services to consumers, small businesses, middle-market companies
and major corporations.  UnionBanCal is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., which, in turn, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: "Larsen" Suit Administrator Gives Out Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corporation said in its March 11, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that court-appointed administrator
is distributing settlement payments to class members in the class
action lawsuit styled Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A.

The class action captioned Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A., was filed
on July 15, 2009, by Union Bank customer Cynthia Larsen.  In
October 2009, the action was transferred from the Northern
District of California to the Multidistrict Litigation action
(MDL) in the Southern District of Florida.  Omnibus motions to
dismiss the complaints in many of the lawsuits included in the
MDL, including Larsen, were denied on March 12, 2010.  The
Plaintiffs allege that, by posting charges to their demand deposit
accounts in order from highest to lowest amount, the Bank charged
them more overdraft fees than it would have charged had the Bank
posted items to their accounts in chronological order.  On July
13, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On November 2, 2011, a Notice of Settlement in the Larsen case was
filed with the court.  The proposed settlement, which memorialized
in a written settlement agreement and related documents, and in
which Union Bank admitted no liability, was subject to court
approval.  Final approval of the settlement agreement in that
matter was granted by the court on
September 13, 2012.  The settlement provided for Union Bank's
payment of $35 million to create a common fund for the benefit of
the proposed settlement class of all Union Bank customers in the
U.S. who had one or more consumer accounts and who, from July 16,
2005, through August 13, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a
result of Union Bank's prior practice of sequencing debit card
transactions in a customer's account from highest to lowest
amount.  Union Bank has paid the designated amount into the
settlement fund and the court-appointed administrator is
distributing payments to class members.  This will conclude the
matter.

UnionBanCal Corporation -- http://www.unionbank/-- is a San
Francisco, California-based, financial holding and commercial bank
holding company whose major subsidiary, Union Bank, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  Union Bank provides a wide range of financial
services to consumers, small businesses, middle-market companies
and major corporations.  UnionBanCal is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., which, in turn, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.


UNITED STATES: AIG Seeks Dismissal of Greenberg's Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Trefis reports that AIG asked the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington to block former CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's class
action suit against the U.S. government.  Mr. Greenberg's company,
Starr International, had a 12% stake in AIG before the 2008
financial crisis which forced the insurer to seek help from the
government in the form of a $182 billion bailout package.

The company had filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S.
government last year saying that the government was unfair to the
AIG shareholders for charging a high interest rate of 15%,
claiming 92% ownership, and forcing the company to sell some of
its biggest assets.  Last month, Starr had revised it complaint
claiming that the government had threatened the AIG board with a
negative publicity campaign and the possibility of terminating
cooperative relationships with the insurer.  Starr had also
revised its claim from $25 billion to $55 billion in damages.

When Starr had filed its initial complaint, AIG's board had a
fiduciary duty to consider joining its CEO of 40 years in his
quest.  However, the news that AIG might even consider biting the
very hand that saved it led to a public outcry over social media
platforms like Twitter and Facebook.  AIG decided not to go
against the public and did not allow Starr to pursue the case on
its behalf.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: NYPSA Class Action Harbinger of More Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medscape reports that the New York State Psychiatric Association's
class action lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group over parity
violations may be a harbinger of more suits to come, says APA.


VISA INC: Gag Orders Against Anti-Settlement Trade Groups Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Storefront Backtalk's Frank Hayes, all those noisy
complaints about the interchange settlement are apparently having
an effect.  A federal judge was set to hear arguments on April 11
to decide whether some retailer groups can continue to blast away
at the proposed class-action settlement on Web sites designed to
convince retailers to opt out of it.  And it's the lawyers
representing those groups who are trying to shut them up.

On March 29, lawyers officially representing the class -- that's
merchants who have accepted Visa and MasterCard payments since
2004, which means virtually all retailers -- complained to U.S.
District Judge John Gleeson about the Web sites set up by the
National Association of Convenience Stores and the National
Grocers Association.  Such sites as MerchantsObject.com offer both
arguments against the settlement and tools to let merchants
automatically send opt-out letters to the court, so they won't be
covered by the settlement.

"These unauthorized and misleading communications from the trade
association plaintiffs pose a real threat of confusing class
members and undermining the court-approved notice processes," the
attorneys alleged in a filing.

In case you're having trouble keeping track: NACS and the other
trade groups are plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Visa and
MasterCard.  The lawyers who are complaining are officially
representing the plaintiffs.  They're supposed to be on the same
side.  But NACS and most of the other named plaintiffs are
objecting to the settlement that their lawyers negotiated, and
that Judge Gleeson gave preliminary approval to last November.  In
other words, the lawyers really are asking the judge for what
amounts to a gag order against their own clients.

At any rate, Judge Gleeson has ordered the anti-settlement groups
to show why they shouldn't have to change the Web sites and send
corrective information to every class member who opted out of the
settlement "based on the false or misleading information."  That's
what the hearing on April was about.

For their part, the anti-settlement trade groups say their sites
aren't misleading.  "Proponents of the settlement are afraid of
allowing contrary views to be disseminated to the class," said
Jeff Shinder, a lawyer for the trade groups.  "They are attempting
to impose some form of regulation on the ability of the objecting
plaintiffs to communicate with their members and that raises First
Amendment issues."

The fact that objections to the settlement have escalated to the
point of gag orders says a lot about how completely things have
fallen apart on the plaintiff side of this case.  To be clear,
some big plaintiffs -- most notably Kroger -- still support the
settlement's terms.  Other big chains that weren't named
plaintiffs but will be covered by some terms of the settlement
even if they opt out, include Walmart, Target and Home Depot, all
of whom say they oppose the settlement.

But when class lawyers and named plaintiffs are at each others'
throats this way, it's pretty obvious that this settlement is much
further from being a certainty than it appeared last summer.  And
it's going to be a very long five months before the final
"fairness hearing" to decide whether the settlement will get final
approval will be on Sept. 12.


VOLT INFO: Paid $2.6 Million in 2012 to Settle Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Volt Information Sciences, Inc., in a Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 9, 2013, disclosed that the Company
in May 2011 settled a class action lawsuit that was initiated in
the State of Illinois related to the Company's length-of-service
based award program.  The Company paid a net settlement amount of
$2.6 million, inclusive of the Company's reimbursement of
plaintiff's legal fees, settlement administrator fees and the
employer's portion of payroll taxes in fiscal 2012.

Volt provides staffing services, contact center computer systems,
telecommunications services and other information solutions.  Volt
operates 192 offices globally with employees in every U.S. state,
with approximately 90% of revenues generated in the United States.
Principal non-U.S. markets include Canada, the United Kingdom,
Germany and Uruguay.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Class Suits Over LOESTRIN 24 FE Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2013, one putative class action was filed against
Dublin, Ireland-based Warner Chilcott plc and certain of its
subsidiaries, Actavis, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries and Lupin
Ltd. and one of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and another putative class
action was filed against the Company, Actavis and Lupin in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in each case
by purported indirect purchasers of the Company's LOESTRIN 24 FE
product.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher
prices for the Company's LOESTRIN 24 FE product as a result of the
Company's and Actavis's and/or Lupin's alleged actions preventing
or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, unspecified treble, multiple and/or punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

While the Company has not yet been served with the complaints, and
no class has been certified, it is reviewing the allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation when and if
served.  However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the
outcome of any litigation, and the Company can offer no assurance
as to the timing of any such litigation or whether the Company
will be successful in any such defense.  In addition, repetitive
class action complaints asserting similar claims and allegations
are common in antitrust litigation, and the Company may be subject
to additional complaints from plaintiffs of the same or other
classes.


WELLS CORE: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., is awaiting final approval of
its settlement of a securities litigation commenced in Maryland,
according to Wells Core Office Income REIT, Inc.'s March 11, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. ("Piedmont REIT") filed a putative class action and
derivative complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others,
Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, the Company's President and a
director; Wells Capital, Inc. ("Wells Capital"), an affiliate of
Wells Core Office Income REIT Advisory Services, LLC (the
"Advisor"), the Company's Advisor; Wells Management Company, Inc.
("Wells Management"), the Company's property manager; certain
affiliates of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. ("WREF"); the
directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly
served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.  On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint.  Subsequent to
the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said
it intends to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million
plus prejudgment interest.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.

On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.  On February 23, 2012, the Court granted
several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for
reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking
exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions
seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by
the plaintiff.

On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment.  On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On September 26, 2012, the
Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants.  On October 12, 2012,
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

On October 22, 2012, Piedmont REIT announced that the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on October
12, 2012.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
plaintiff will dismiss the appeal and release all defendants from
liability in exchange for total payment of $4.9 million in cash by
Piedmont REIT and its insurer.  On December 31, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court.  On January 2, 2013, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing for
April 18, 2013, to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.  The settlement, which is subject to Court
approval following notice to the class, is expected to resolve the
appeal and result in the final disposition of the case.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action if for any reason the
settlement is not approved.  Although WREF believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and damages in
these actions, WREF is unable at this time to predict the outcome
of the appeal of this action or, if the action is reinstated,
reasonably estimate a range of damages, or how any liability and
responsibility for damages might be allocated among the 17
defendants in the action, which includes 11 defendants not
affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or Wells Management.
The ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material
adverse impact on WREF's financial results, financial condition,
or liquidity.

Headquartered in Norcross, Georgia, Wells Core Office Income REIT,
Inc. -- http://www.wellscorereit.com/-- is a Maryland corporation
that has elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust for
federal income tax purposes.  The Company engages in the
acquisition and ownership of commercial real estate properties
located in the United States.


WINSTAR COMMS: Court Grants Class Certification in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George B. Daniels certified a class in IN RE
WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 01 Civ. 3014
(GBD), (S.D.N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiffs BIM Intermobiliare SGR, Robert Ahearn, and DRYE
Custom Pallets allege that the accounting firm Grant Thornton
committed securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and made false and misleading statements in an audit
opinion letter included in Winstar's 1999 Form 10-K filing.

Lead Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of "all persons
and entities that purchased the common stock or publically traded
bonds of Winstar . . . during the period from March 10, 2000 until
April 2, 2001."

Judge Daniels granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion, to the extent
that the Court certifies a class with these sub-class definitions:

   I. All persons and entities that purchased the common stock of
      Winstar from March 10, 2000 until April 2, 2001 (inclusive)
      and were damaged thereby;

  II. All persons and entities that purchased Winstar U.S. dollar-
      denominated 121/2% bonds due April 2008 (CUSIP 975515BD8),
      123/4% bonds due April 2010 (CUSLP 975515AY3), and 14-3/4%
      bonds due April 2010 (CUSIP 975515AZO) from October 16, 2000
      until April 2, 2001 (inclusive) and were damaged thereby.

The certified class is led by Lead Plaintiffs BIM, Ahearn, and
DRYE.

Judge Daniels said the Plaintiffs have class standing to represent
both stock and bond purchasers.

A copy of the District Court's April 17, 2013 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at http://is.gd/LYa8wDfrom Leagle.com.


ZEP INC: Says $1.6MM Likely Settlement Cost of Sales Agents' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zep Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, that as of the
Company's fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, it established a $1.8
million accrual with respect to its potential liability to the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and Acuity
Specialty Products, Inc.  During fiscal year 2012, the Company
paid approximately $0.2 million to settle the claims of certain
current and former sales representatives and reduced the accrual
by such amount.  The Company believes its current accrual of $1.6
million continues to represent its best estimate of the probable
settlement cost related to the Britto lawsuit and another lawsuit,
Aguilar, et al v. Zep Inc. and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc.

Zep Inc. is a defendant in Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and Acuity
Specialty Products, Inc., that was commenced in December 2010, and
a lawsuit known as Aguilar, et al v. Zep Inc. and Acuity Specialty
Products, Inc. that was commenced in December  2012.  The Britto
lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court in Alameda County,
California.  The Aguilar lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
in Alameda County; however, Zep removed it to federal court.  The
plaintiffs, who are current and former sales representatives
employed by Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., a subsidiary of Zep,
allege Acuity failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses
and failed to pay their wages by assessing unlawful deductions
from commissions. Messrs. Britto and Cowan are also seeking to
recover statutory or civil penalties pursuant to the California
Labor Private Attorney General Act.

The lawsuit filed by Britto and Cowan was brought on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class that includes all of
Acuity's current sales representatives based in California and all
former sales representatives based in California who were employed
by Acuity on December 30, 2006 or thereafter.  Approximately 171
persons were employed by Acuity in California as sales
representatives on December 30, 2006 and thereafter and, are
therefore, members of the putative class proposed by Britto and
Cowan.

Zep has reached settlements with approximately one-half of the
members of the putative class.  Britto and Cowan have indicated
that they intend to contest the validity of the settlements.  Zep
believes the basis for their challenge, as it has been explained
to Zep, is without merit.

On May 7, 2012, the Court issued a ruling with respect to Britto's
and Cowan's motion for class certification in which it denied the
motion with respect to all causes of action asserted.  At the same
time, the Court denied another motion filed by Britto and Cowan in
which they sought leave to amend their complaint to add a claim
based on Zep's alleged failure to comply with requirements of the
California Labor Code relating to the form of wage statements.  On
June 1, 2012, Britto and Cowan filed a motion for leave to
intervene in the suit on behalf of 54 individual plaintiffs and a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying class
certification.

On July 30, 2012, the Court granted Britto's and Cowan's motion
for leave to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in their
lawsuit.  The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's decision denying class certification.  After the
Court's action, 55 plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit.  The
interveners asserted, in addition to the claims related to expense
reimbursement and commission deductions, a claim based on Zep's
alleged failure to comply with requirements of the California
Labor Code relating to the form of wage statements.

According to the Company, "We appealed the Court's July 30, 2012
decision granting the motion for leave to intervene.  On
December 20, 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld the Company's appeal
of the trial court's decision to permit individual plaintiffs to
intervene in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan.  The
decision of the Court of Appeal directs the trial court to deny
the motion for leave to intervene and directs the plaintiffs to
reimburse the Company for its costs of the appeal.  As a result of
the Court of Appeal's decision, the purported class-action lawsuit
filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan now involves only Messrs. Britto
and Cowan.  However, on December 24, 2012, 54 of the current and
former sales representatives who sought to intervene in the
lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan filed the Aguilar
lawsuit in which they asserted against the Company on behalf of
themselves individually the same claims that they sought to assert
by intervening in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan.
This lawsuit seeks to put the named plaintiffs in the same
position they would have occupied if they had been allowed to
intervene in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan."

"We believe that we have substantial factual and legal defenses to
the claims made in the lawsuits, and we intend to assert the
defenses aggressively.  If we are not successful in our defense
against the claims asserted in the lawsuits and if there is an
adverse verdict on the merits from which there is no successful
appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement of the
litigation, the resulting liability could be material to our
financial condition or results of operations.  However, because of
the uncertainty of the outcome of the lawsuits, including the
amount of damages, if any, any plaintiff may be able to prove, and
because our liability, if any, arising from the litigation,
including the amount of any damages awarded if plaintiffs are
successful in the litigation or any negotiated settlement, could
vary widely, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible losses or
range of loss that may arise from the litigation in excess of the
amounts described."

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Zep Inc. manufactures and sells a wide
variety of high-performance maintenance and cleaning chemicals
that help professionals and prosumers clean, maintain and protect
their assets.  Its product portfolio includes anti-bacterial and
industrial hand-care products, cleaners, degreasers, deodorizers,
disinfectants, floor finishes, sanitizers, pest- and weed-control
products, air-care products and delivery systems, and a wide
variety of automotive maintenance chemicals.


* Foley Hoag Discusses Ruling on U.S. Copyright Group Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Kluft, Esq. -- dkluft@foleyhoag.com -- at Foley Hoag LLP
reports that ever since the entertainment industry figured out how
to use IP addresses to bring copyright infringement lawsuits
against illegal downloaders, defendants and critics have been
calling these plaintiffs "trolls".  But name-calling wasn't enough
for Dmitriy Shirokov.  He wanted payback, and brought a class
action lawsuit against his persecutors.  However, according to an
order issued by Judge George O'Toole of the Federal District Court
for Massachusetts, Mr. Shirokov will have to figure out another
way to vindicate his rights.

The story is a familiar one.  The U.S. Copyright Group got
together with a film production company and acquired the IP
addresses of bit torrent downloaders who had allegedly illegally
downloaded the film Far Cry, a thriller based on the first-person
shooter video game of the same name.  USCG then filed a copyright
infringement lawsuit against 2,094 anonymous John Does connected
to those IP addresses, and used the subpoena power of the court to
obtain their identities from their internet service providers.
Upon obtaining the identities, USCG sent a demand letter to each
downloader, demanding $1,500 to settle the claim, increasing to
$2,500 if not paid promptly.  In the aggregate, the demands are
high enough to make the lawsuit profitable, but each individual
demand is low enough so that most defendants just pay up instead
of going through the added expense of retaining counsel and
fighting it.

But Mr. Shirokov did retain counsel, and not just to defend
himself against the allegation of copyright infringement.  In
November 2010, he initiated a class action lawsuit against USCG on
behalf of a class of 4,577 individuals who had received such
demand letters.  The complaint described the USCG's actions as
"settlement fraud," and brought twenty-five counts including for
conspiracy, extortion and violation of consumer protection laws.
Essentially, Mr. Shirokov argued that USCG committed fraud because
it had no intention of ever litigating any of the copyright
infringement suits. Rather, according to Mr. Shirokov, the whole
scheme was just a stickup.

Unfortunately for Mr. Shirokov, however, on March 26, 2013, the
court held that he had not properly identified a class.  Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) requires a plaintiff seeking class
certification to establish that:

     1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;

     2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

     3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

     4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.

According to Judge O'Toole, the class proposed by Mr. Shirokov was
numerous enough, but it did not fulfill the rule's other
requirements because all of the class members did not suffer the
same injury.  Some were allegedly injured when they paid the
amount demanded by USCG, while other were allegedly injured by the
legal expenses incurred in fighting the demand.  Thus, the court
held that the commonality and typicality requirements were not
satisfied.

No word yet on whether Mr. Shirokov will seek to amend his
complaint in order to narrow the class.


* Lawyer Favors Mediation in Employer-Employee Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that Lorene
Schaefer has seen employment discrimination from both sides -- as
a general counsel who handled bias complaints against her company,
and then as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit charging gender
discrimination.

So it makes sense that in late March the federal government
invited her as one of seven attorneys to come to Washington, D.C.,
and discuss how to make the system at the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission work better -- for both complaining
employees and their employers.

"My view is that it's important as a matter of public policy that
our resources go to try to help the parties resolve the dispute,"
Schaefer told Corpcounsel.com on April 10.  "Right now there is a
huge missed opportunity."

Ms. Schaefer is the former general counsel of General Electric
Company's transportation division.  And it's no surprise she
favors mediation over lawsuits.  She is currently a mediator and
independent workplace investigator for the company she founded,
One Mediation Inc., as well as its Workplace Investigations Group.
She also writes a popular employment law blog, Win-Win HR.

While still general counsel, she sued GE in May of 2007 in a class
action suit alleging systemic, company-wide discrimination against
its more than 1,000 female executives and female in-house
attorneys. The case ended in a confidential settlement in 2009,
and she has been a proponent of mediation ever since.

"I think taking cases to court is not good for the employer or the
employee," Ms. Schaefer said, adding that she thinks the EEOC
"should look at the bigger picture of where they are using their
resources as a government [agency], and what is their mandate."

Ms. Schaefer included her suggestions in written testimony to the
EEOC as part of a meeting to develop the agency's quality control
plan.

The meeting included three roundtables -- one made up of EEOC
front-line staff, one of employer and employee legal
representatives, and one of EEOC managers.  In the usual agency
process, the EEOC offers its own mediation before an investigation
starts.  If, however, once it does an investigation and finds
"reasonable cause" that discrimination has occurred, it then
provides the employee with a right to sue letter.  In most cases,
the EEOC itself doesn't bring suit, and it's up to the employee to
hire a lawyer.  The agency then will offer a voluntary
"conciliation" session.

"The EEOC has been criticized as using 'take it or leave it'
tactics in the post-cause conciliation step," according to
Ms. Schaefer's written testimony.

If conciliation fails, the agency usually leaves and takes its
"notable leverage" out of the dispute, Ms. Schaefer said.  She
called it "a lack of meaningful conciliation efforts by the EEOC,"
and a lost opportunity.  She urged the agency to implement a pilot
program incorporating a formal alternative dispute resolution
process into the EEOC's conciliation step.  Among other things,
that would mean bringing in an independent third party to mediate
the dispute.

The mediator wouldn't make findings, she explained, but would try
to help the employee, the employer, and the EEOC resolve the
dispute without going to court.  So far the agency has not
responded to her suggestion.  But feedback at the meeting was not
hopeful, she said.

Ms. Schaefer said in an ensuing panel discussion, a group of
managers who run EEOC field offices spoke against her suggestion.
They saw no value in bringing in a mediator once the agency
investigators found reasonable cause to believe there was
discrimination, she recalled.

"What I found so troubling was their almost visceral reaction to
having a mediator participate once there was a cause finding," she
said.

Ms. Schaefer shrugged, "I don't understand the intensity of their
reaction.  My take-away is that nothing will change."

In a statement released after the meeting, EEOC Chair Jacqueline
Berrien didn't mention Ms. Schaefer's idea.  But she pledged to
"carefully consider the recommendations of our staff and external
stakeholders on how to strengthen and improve EEOC's
administrative enforcement program."

Regardless, Ms. Schaefer isn't giving up, and she has started
writing a paper about her idea.  "I think it's an opportunity for
more education at the EEOC, and for most employers who have not
faced a for-cause finding," she said.


* Securities Class Action Filings Down 10% in 2012, PwC Reveals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amon, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that federal
securities class action filings decreased by about 10% last year
from 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers found in its 17th annual
Securities Litigation Study published on April 9.  There were 172
cases in 2012, compared to 191 cases in 2011, with a significant
drop in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"2012 was a year that implied no clear direction as to where
regulators or shareholders may focus in the future," Patricia
Etzold, securities litigation partner with PwC said in a
statement.  We are at "a crossroads, waiting for a sign.  2013
looks to be a year that could go in many different directions,"
she said.

The first three quarters of 2012 saw an average of 46 cases, while
the fourth quarter saw a dramatic decrease to 33 cases -- the
lowest level since the 30 cases filed in the second quarter of
2009, according to the survey.

The presidential election and the "fiscal cliff" may have affected
the last quarter, along with Hurricane Sandy, according to the
survey.

Financial crisis filings, China-based companies and, to a lesser
extent, merger & acquisition transactions, saw significant
decreases during 2012.  There were three financial crisis-related
cases filed in all of 2012 after 178 cases were filed from 2008 to
2011.

The number of settlements and their total value also decreased in
2012.  After a 26% decline in the number of settled federal
securities class action cases from 2010 to 2011, cases settled in
2012 decreased by 7%.  The total value of settlements in 2012 was
the lowest amount since 2002, according to the survey.


* Self-Driving Cars Face Threat of Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Declan McCullagh, writing for CNET News, reports that robot
enthusiasts debate ways to protect self-driving cars and other
autonomous machines from the looming existential threat of class
action lawsuits.

Self-driving cars are expected to save lives: a vehicle driven by
a human will experience, on average, a crash every 160,000 miles
or so.  It's only a matter of time, advocates say, before robots
become better drivers than us.

That is, if the lawyers let them.  Industry insiders are already
fretting about a host of legal problems that could bedevil robot
car makers once a sufficient number of their creations take to the
roads.  Product liability, tort law, negligence, foreseeable harm,
patent encumbrance, and design defects are only some of the
concerns.

"The longer it takes for this technology to reach the market, the
more people die," Josh Blackman, a law professor at the South
Texas College of Law, said on April 8 at a conference hosted by
Stanford University called "We Robot: Getting Down to Business."

Over 100 of the brightest thinkers about self-driving cars and
other robotic machinery gathered to debate legal snarls that could
ensnare these machines.  Papers presented included ones with
titles "Human Factors in Robotic Torts," "Risk Management in
Commercializing Robots," and "Application of Traditional Tort
Theory to Embodied Machine Intelligence."

Cars are "the second-most dangerous consumer product that's
available to be sold," after cigarettes, said Brad Templeton, a
consultant who has worked with Google in the past on its self-
driving car project.  "We're making it a safer product. Robots
won't make the same mistake twice."

One option is to enact laws to limit the liability of a robot
manufacturer, a choice that saved the U.S. general aviation
industry from collapse when President Clinton signed into law in
1994 a measure that curbed companies' legal exposure.  But it will
surely be opposed by the plaintiffs bar, which happens to be one
of the largest donors to the Democratic Party, and the idea isn't
uniformly supported -- at least not yet -- even among robot
enthusiasts.

"Is it appropriate to have a federal legislative response to the
liability question?" said Bryant Smith, a resident fellow at the
Stanford Center for Internet and Society.  "At this point I'm
fairly agnostic."

Allowing self-driving cars to share the roads with self-driving
teenagers will likely result, in some cases, with human-initiated
attempts to see just how quickly a robot can apply the brakes or
how it will respond to attempts to run it off the road.  Or
programming errors could cause an accident that results in human
injury or death.

Once that happens, headlines about self-driving cars causing
accidents will "set back the movement significantly," Mr. Blackman
says.  That could result in a legal crackdown on a useful
technology that will save far more lives than it takes.

It's a legal conundrum not limited to self-driving cars. Once
robots progress beyond the Roomba level of utility to more
powerful machines able to perform more domestic chores, they may
be able to harm or kill a human.  If that happens, lawsuits over
home robots are equally inevitable.

One way manufacturers can limit their liability is to lock down
their platform -- the "closed robot" idea -- so it can't be
modified. Open robots, on the other hand, may be far more useful
and fun, and spur the kind of rapid prototyping that has led to
innovation in other areas of computer hardware and software.

Ryan Calo, a professor at the University of Washington law school,
has proposed extending selective immunity to robot makers in much
the same way that Congress has provided selective immunity to
firearm manufacturers and (through the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act and the Telecommunications Act of 1996) Internet
services providers.  Mr. Calo suggests that the immunity would
only apply when "it is clear that the robot was under the control
of the consumer, a third party software, or otherwise the result
of end-user modification."

Diana Cooper, a law student at the University of Ottawa, said on
April 8 that an "ethical licensing model" that borrows concepts
from the Free Software Foundation's GPL is another way to protect
open robotics.  Her proposal would require robot owners to buy
insurance and prohibits certain applications, meaning that if an
end user violates the restrictions, the manufacturer would not be
liable.

The license also aims to deter sexbots.  "The prohibition of the
sexual enslavement of robots," Ms. Cooper says in a paper
presented [Mon]day, "prevents the dehumanization of intimacy in
male-female interactions."

All this is a bit speculative, argues Curtis Karnow, a superior
court judge in San Francisco.  He suggests that we don't have to
worry too much about true machine intelligence yet: "Most of these
products do what they are told to do, in the way they are told to
do it . . . Unintended injuries are often just the result of human
error and poor workplace design."


* Two Supreme Court Rulings Prompt Class Certification Confusion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Dorf, writing for Verdict, reports that two recent
Supreme Court rulings that were handed down barely one month apart
address the same, important topic: Under what circumstances may
federal district courts insist on proof of matters that go to the
merits of the case as a precondition for allowing the plaintiffs
to proceed via a class action, rather than through a series of
individual lawsuits?  Although the two rulings are theoretically
reconcilable, they adopt very different attitudes towards class
action litigation.  Yet surprisingly, the second case -- Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend -- does not even cite the first case -- Amgen
Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds.  The likely
result will be to sow confusion in the lower federal courts.

What explains the fact that the Supreme Court's right hand does
not seem to know what its left hand is doing?  As I shall explain
in this column, two factors appear to account for the mess.

First, despite language in past cases announcing a rule that class
certification decisions should be made without regard to the
substantive merits of the case, the Supreme Court has now
recognized an exception that nearly swallows the rule.  And for
good reason: the applicable federal rule of civil procedure itself
frequently cannot be applied without reference to the merits of
the case.

Second, the notion that the Court's "left" and "right" hands are
acting independently of one another is more than a metaphor in
this instance.  The Comcast and Amgen cases both divided the Court
on roughly ideological grounds.  The decision pattern reflects
conservative hostility towards, and liberal acceptance of, class
actions.

The Two Decisions' Superficial Agreement on the Standard to Be
Applied

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits plaintiffs (and in
circumstances not relevant here, defendants) to litigate as a
class of persons, rather than as individuals, so long as the trial
judge certifies that the plaintiffs satisfy criteria set forth in
the rule.  For some kinds of proposed class actions, those
criteria include a requirement that "questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members" of the class.

How should a trial judge decide whether common class issues
predominate?  In the 1974 case of Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
the Court said that, whatever else he or she does, the district
judge lacks "any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into
the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be
maintained as a class action."

But questions relevant to class certification sometimes intertwine
with the merits of the underlying case.  Hence, in a footnote in
the 2011 case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Court
announced an important exception to the Eisen prohibition.  As
restated in the recent Amgen case, under this exception, "[m]erits
questions may be considered to the extent -- but only to the
extent -- that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule
23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied."

Although none of the Justices appears to disagree with that
proposition, there is real disagreement among them over what it
means.  To understand the nature of that disagreement, consider
what the two most recent cases decided.

The Fraud on the Market Theory in Securities Law and Its Relevance
to the Amgen Case's Class Action Certification

Amgen was a securities fraud case brought by investors who
purchased Amgen stock at a time when, they alleged, share prices
were artificially inflated as a result of fraudulent statements by
the company about the safety of two of its products.  When the
truth came to light, the stock price fell.  A successful plaintiff
in a securities fraud case must prove that he or she relied on the
allegedly fraudulent statement or statements, and one might
therefore think that securities fraud cases would never be
appropriate for class certification.  After all, each investor
will have made the purchase decision based on a different
combination of factors.  How then, can common class issues be said
to "predominate" in such a case, as required by Rule 23?

The Court's cases permit class certification because they
recognize that in an efficient market, share price reflects all
publicly available information.  Thus, even if some particular
investor did not know about the allegedly fraudulent statements
the company had made, and thus did not directly rely on them in
making his or her purchase decision, indirect reliance can be
presumed, because the share price reflected the market's reaction
to the allegedly fraudulent statements.  Accordingly, Amgen did
not challenge the plaintiffs' claim to have established the
element of reliance.

Instead, Amgen argued that class certification should be denied
because the putative class representative had not established that
the allegedly false statements were material -- i.e., that they
misstated or omitted information on which prudent investors in
fact would rely.  The majority in Amgen rejected this argument,
however, on the ground that materiality is a merits issue.  All
that Rule 23 requires is that common questions predominate, the
Court noted, and the question of materiality will be potentially
dispositive of every class member's case: If, in a trial on the
merits, the plaintiff class is unable to show that the allegedly
fraudulent statements were material, then every member of the
class will lose.

The High Court Finds Allegations of Cable Monopolization in the
Comcast Case Insufficient to Support a Class Action

Comcast was a case filed on behalf of over two million cable
television subscribers in the Philadelphia area, alleging that
Comcast had colluded with other cable providers to obtain a
regional monopoly.  The case sought damages for the difference
between the price that subscribers paid Comcast and what they
would have paid in a competitive market.  The plaintiffs offered
four mechanisms by which Comcast allegedly leveraged its monopoly
to charge higher prices, but the district judge only accepted one
of them as potentially valid.  Yet the plaintiffs' expert
calculated the damages that Comcast customers suffered as a result
of monopoly pricing based on a model that assumed that all four
mechanisms were in play, rather than solely based on the model
that the district judge had accepted.  Accordingly, the Supreme
Court held that the expert's testimony -- which was the basis for
the conclusion that class issues would predominate in the damages
portion of the litigation -- was inadequate for establishing such
predominance, and thus that class certification was improper.

The dissenters in Comcast thought that the high Court never should
have agreed to hear the case because it presented a highly
artificial issue.  The plaintiffs had (perhaps foolishly) conceded
that they needed to establish the predominance of classwide
damages issues over individual damages issues.  Yet courts
routinely certify cases as class actions for liability only,
relegating plaintiff class members to individual litigation when
the time comes to calculate damages.

But even assuming the case was properly before the Court, the
dissenters thought that the majority's resolution was wrong.  They
considered the expert's reliance on rejected theories of
monopolization irrelevant to the commonality question.  Because
the expert was comparing prices that were actually paid by
customers in areas with more cable competition, the expert's
model should have produced the same results, regardless of the
mechanism by which monopolization enabled the monopolist to charge
higher prices.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of this disagreement, it is
hard to read Comcast alongside Amgen without thinking that the
Court is suffering from judicial multiple personality disorder.
In Amgen the Court bent over backwards to minimize the burden for
class certification, while in Comcast the Court applied Rule 23
strictly. What explains the two very different tones that the
Court took in the two cases?

The Inevitable Intertwining of Class Certification and Merits
Issues

When jurists agree in principle on an unclear rule of law, we can
expect to see differences in their application of that rule.  Rule
23 is a case in point.  The Court's cases say that a prospective
class need not prove the merits of its case in order to obtain
class certification -- except to the extent that the merits are
relevant to class status.  The problem is that, by its terms, the
predominance requirement of Rule 23 almost always makes the merits
relevant to class certification.

Consider a schematic example.  Suppose that you are a judge who is
faced with a prospective class action by victims of accidents
involving some allegedly defective product.  In order to prevail
on the merits of their liability case, the plaintiffs must
ultimately prove that the product was defective and that the
defect caused the injuries of the various plaintiffs.  The
defectiveness question will be common to all cases, but the
question of causation typically will not be.  Does the common
defectiveness question predominate over the causation question,
which will differ for individuals?  Answering that question will
require the judge to imagine how the trial will likely go.  What
issues will take the most time in discovery and in trial?  Which
questions will be easy, and which difficult?  These sorts of
second-order questions are not exactly merits questions, but they
are closely intertwined with the merits, because you cannot
foretell how easy or difficult it will be to establish some point
without a view about the merits of that point itself.

Accordingly, merits views will very frequently color the class-
certification inquiry.  The Court's admonition that trial judges
may consider merits issues "only to the extent" that doing so is
necessary to resolve class certification issues under Rule 23 thus
turns out to be not much of a limitation at all, because merits
issues very frequently are -- or at least very frequently can be
seen as -- relevant to class certification.

                      The Ideological Stakes

Given the wiggle room that Rule 23 affords for consideration of
the merits, it is not surprising that the Justices' ideological
druthers prove quite predictive of their votes on questions of
class certification.  With one exception and one caveat, Amgen and
Comcast broke on left/right ideological grounds.

The exception is Chief Justice Roberts.  He was the only Justice
who unequivocally voted with the majority in both cases.  In
Amgen, he joined the Court's more liberal members (Justices
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) to form a majority.  The
caveat here is that the Amgen majority also included one other
conservative, Justice Alito -- but Justice Alito wrote separately
to say that he was declining to join a dissent by Justice Thomas
(joined by Justice Kennedy) only because the parties had not
sought the overruling of a case on which the majority relied.
Justice Scalia penned his own dissent.

Meanwhile, in Comcast the Court broke strictly on ideological
lines, with Justice Scalia writing for a 5-4 conservative majority
and all of the more liberal Justices dissenting.  That result
precisely mirrored the breakdown of the Justices' votes in another
class certification ruling, the 2011 Wal-Mart decision noted
above.

In the Wal-Mart case, the Court rejected certification of a
nationwide class of female employees of Wal-Mart, all of whom were
alleging sex discrimination.  Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for
a 5-4 conservative majority.

To be sure, the Wal-Mart case did not directly involve the
"predominance" question that was at issue in Amgen and Comcast,
because the Court addressed different sub-parts of Rule 23, but
Wal-Mart did implicate the related question of whether there were
any common questions of law or fact.  Writing for the Court's four
more liberal members, Justice Ginsburg accused the majority of
importing the predominance requirement into the threshold
commonality inquiry.

That accusation is itself telling, because the dueling opinions in
Wal-Mart look very much like a disagreement about the merits.
Justice Scalia's reasoning closely tracked a substantive view of
the underlying employment discrimination law -- a view rejecting
employer liability for a pattern or practice of tolerating a
sexist corporate culture.  Justice Ginsburg, in contrast, appeared
to endorse such a theory of liability.  The very fact that this
substantive-law argument looked to Justice Ginsburg like a battle
over the predominance issue shows that predominance itself is
merits-laden.

The interpenetration of Rule 23 and merits questions ensures that
we can expect more ideologically -- divided class action rulings
from this Supreme Court.  Liberals tend to view class actions as a
useful tool for plaintiffs to invoke in order to hold bad actors
accountable, whereas conservatives tend to view them as a means by
which greedy lawyers extort exorbitant settlements from innocent
corporate actors.  The fuzzy line between Rule 23 and the merits
thus gives the Justices a double opportunity to vote their policy
preferences: once on their views about class actions in general,
and then again on their views of the merits of any particular
case.  As recent rulings illustrate, the Justices have seized that
opportunity enthusiastically.


                             *********

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  * * *