CAR_Public/130425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 81

                             Headlines


APPLE REIT: Class-Action Lawsuits Dismissed With Prejudice
AXA EQUITABLE: Two Class Suits in New Jersey Consolidated
CARLYLE GMS: D.C. Circuit Appeal in Shareholder Suit Set Aside
CONSOL ENERGY: Expects to Pay $20.2MM to Settle Shareholder Suit
DEL MONTE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Chicken Jerky Treats Suit

DEL MONTE: Faces Suit Over Milo's Kitchen Dog Treat Products
DEL MONTE: Paid $0.2-Mil. in Wage and Hour Suit Settlement
DEL MONTE: "Mazur" Suit to Proceed in Pa. After MDL Bid Denied
DEL MONTE: Two Motions Remain Pending in "Kosta" Class Suit
DEL MONTE: "Webster" Suit Remanded Back to Calif. Superior Court

DIAMOND FOODS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Wins Initial OK of Settlement in "Rubery" Suit
EASTMAN KODAK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hutchinson" Suit
EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend Elscint Shareholder Suits

FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suits
FAMILY DOLLAR: Oral Arguments in 4th Cir. Appeal Set for May 14
FAMILY DOLLAR: Seeks D&O Insurance Coverage for Pipefitters Suit
FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS: Seeks Dismissal of Employee Class Suit
GILAT SATELLITE: Awaits Ruling in Class Suit Over Failed Merger

GO MAX: Recalls Vegan Candy Bar Products Due to Presence of Milk
GREAT SOUTHERN: Litigation in Overdraft Suit vs. Bank Ongoing
H&R BLOCK: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Illinois
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal in Inkjet Printer Litigation Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss C&C Workers Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gammel" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Autonomy Acquisition Suits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Suit Over FLSA Violations
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Defends "Skold" Class Suit in California
HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Inks MOU to Settle WTC Merger-Related Suits

IMMUCOR INC: Final Approval of $22MM Settlement Expected in June
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
LLOYDS TSB: Ct. Certifies Two Classes in Int'l. Loan Products Suit
MANDA PACKING: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
MATTEL INC: $172.5-MM Judgment on Trade Secrets Claim Vacated

MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeal From Summary Judgment Remains Pending
MERIT BIRD: Recalls Vitae Products Due to Possible Health Risk
NATURA PET: Recalls Dry Pet Foods Due to Possible Health Risk
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Goffstown Women's Prison Faces Class Action
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Over 2006 Water Acquisitions

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Received Final OK of Securities Suit Deal
POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
RICH PRODUCTS: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
SA NATIONAL PARKS: Cape Town Mulls Class Action Over Security
SEARS ROEBUCK: Class Cert. Bid in Song-Beverly Act Suit Denied

SKECHERS: Shape-Up Shoes Class Action Settlement Awaits Final OK
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Prepares Stipulation to Resolve Securities Suit
SWISHER HYGIENE: Continues to Defend Shareholder MDL in N.C.
US XPRESS: Settles Drivers' Class Action Over $2.75 Million
VELTI PLC: U.S. Subsidiary Facing Class Suit Threat

VELTI PLC: Dismissal, Arbitration Bids Pending in Air2Web Case
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Indiana High Court Won't Review Dismissal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Defends "Sanders" Class Suit in California
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Securities Suit Returned to District Court
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Suit in Israel Has Been Stayed

WEST ELM: Recalls 900 Floor Lamps Due to Injury & Shock Hazards

* Goal Group Says Australia Biggest Settlement Jurisdiction


                             *********


APPLE REIT: Class-Action Lawsuits Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
A securities litigation case against Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple
REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc.,
Apple REIT Ten, Inc., the companies' Boards of Directors, certain
officers and related advisory companies has been dismissed.
Motions to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class-Action Complaint
In re Apple REITs Litigation, 11-cv-02919 (EDNY
April, 3, 2013) were granted in full and with prejudice.  A United
States District Judge entered a judgment in favor of the Apple
Parties on Wednesday, April 3, 2013.

The Apple REIT companies are real estate investment trusts
(REITs).  Apple REIT Six, Inc.'s portfolio consists of 66 hotels,
containing a total of 7,658 guestrooms in 18 states.  Apple REIT
Seven, Inc.'s portfolio consists of 51 hotels, containing a total
of 6,426 guestrooms in 18 states. Apple REIT Eight, Inc.'s
portfolio consists of 51 hotels, containing a total of 5,912
guestrooms in 19 states.  Apple REIT Nine, Inc.'s portfolio
consists of 89 hotels, containing a total of 11,371 guestrooms
in 27 states.  Apple REIT Ten, Inc.'s portfolio consists of 34
hotels with a total of 4,367 guestrooms in 15 states.


AXA EQUITABLE: Two Class Suits in New Jersey Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The two class action lawsuits filed against AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in New Jersey were consolidated, 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.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC").  The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds.  The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees
paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for investment management
services.  In November 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the
Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.
In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class
action in addition to a derivative action.  In the amended
complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments,
rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees paid,
interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses and
reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable.  In
December 2011, AXA Equitable and FMG LLC filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  In May 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking restitution and
rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act.  In September
2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as it
related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the defendants'
motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et
al. v. FMG LLC.  The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of
eight funds, four of which are named in the Sivolella lawsuit as
well as four new funds, and seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of
the Investment Company Act for alleged excessive fees paid to FMG
LLC for investment management services.  In light of the
similarities of the allegations in the Sivolella and Sanford
lawsuits, the parties and the Court agreed to consolidate the two
lawsuits.

Established in the state of New York in 1859, is among the largest
life insurance companies in the United States.  The Company is
part of a diversified financial services organization offering a
broad spectrum of financial advisory, insurance and investment
management services.


CARLYLE GMS: D.C. Circuit Appeal in Shareholder Suit Set Aside
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, August 24, 2011, and September 1, 2011, three
putative shareholder class actions were filed against The Carlyle
Group L.P.; certain of its affiliates and former directors of
Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited, alleging that the fund
offering materials and various public disclosures were materially
misleading or omitted material information.

CCC was a fund sponsored by Carlyle that invested in AAA-rated
residential mortgage backed securities on a highly leveraged
basis.  In March of 2008, amidst turmoil throughout the mortgage
markets and money markets, CCC filed for insolvency protection in
Guernsey. Several different lawsuits developed from the CCC
insolvency.

Two of the shareholder class actions, (Phelps v. Stomber, et al.
and Glaubach v. Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited, et al.), were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.  Phelps v. Stomber, et al. was also filed in the Supreme
Court of New York, New York County, and was subsequently removed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The two original D.C. cases were consolidated into one
case, under the caption of Phelps v. Stomber, and the Phelps named
plaintiffs were designated "lead plaintiffs" by the court. The New
York case was transferred to the D.C. federal court and the
plaintiffs requested that it be consolidated with the other two
D.C. actions. The plaintiffs were seeking all compensatory damages
sustained as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, costs and
expenses, as well as reasonable attorney's fees.

Carlyle GMS Finance, Inc., disclosed in an Amendment No. 1 to Form
10 (General Form for Registration of Securities), filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 11, that on
August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia dismissed both the D.C. and New York class actions.
The plaintiffs have moved for leave to amend their compliant
and/or for amendment of the Court's decision, and the defendants
have opposed these motions.  The plaintiffs also have noticed an
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, but the appeal is being held in abeyance until the
District Court resolves pending motions.


CONSOL ENERGY: Expects to Pay $20.2MM to Settle Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in a press statement April 12, 2013, that
earnings results for the three months ended March 31 will include
several adjustments which are unusual or infrequent in nature.
These adjustments total $62.5 million and include the CNX Gas
shareholders litigation settlement pre-tax expense adjustment of
$20.2 million.

The adjustment, the Company said, is the result of an agreement in
principle for resolution of the class actions brought by
shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the tender offer by CONSOL
Energy to acquire all the shares of CNX Gas common stock that
CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25 per share in May
2010.  The total settlement provides for a payment to the
plaintiffs of $42.73 million, of which the Company expects to pay
$20.2 million.  This settlement is subject to court approval and
to the execution of final agreements with the parties.

CONSOL Energy Inc. (NYSE: CNX), is a diversified fuel producer in
the Eastern U.S.


DEL MONTE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Chicken Jerky Treats Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss or transfer one of the three class action lawsuits over
Chicken Jerky Treats pending in California, 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 27, 2013.

On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012, and October 16, 2012,
three separate putative class action complaints were filed against
the Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v.
Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims
relating to Chicken Jerky Treats.  Specifically, the complaints
allege that plaintiffs' dogs became ill as a result of consumption
of Chicken Jerky Treats.  The complaints also allege that the
Company breached its warranties and California's consumer
protection laws.  Each of the complaints seeks certification as a
class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million.  The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
On December 18, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and
consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters.  The Company
agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that
they should not be consolidated.  The Court ordered the cases are
related in an Order on January 24, 2013.  In the Langone case, the
Company filed a Motion to Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013.
The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Del Monte is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the
U.S. retail market.


DEL MONTE: Faces Suit Over Milo's Kitchen Dog Treat Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in Missouri
alleging two Milo's Kitchen dog treat products contain lethal
substances, 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 27, 2013.

On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, alleging that Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky treats
("Chicken Jerky Treats") and Milo's Kitchen Chicken Grillers
Recipe home-style dog treats contain "poisonous antibiotics and
other potentially lethal substances."  The Plaintiff seeks
restitution and damages not to exceed $75,000 per class member and
the aggregated claim for damages of the class not to exceed $5.0
million under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  The
complaint also alleges the Company continued to sell its Chicken
Jerky Treats in Jackson County, Missouri, after it announced its
recall of the product on January 9, 2013.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action.

The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously
defend itself.  The Company cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.
The Company has product contamination and recall insurance which
may be available to cover losses related to this case, if any;
however, the ultimate amount of losses related to this case as
well as other recall costs may exceed the amount of any recovery.

Del Monte Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Del Monte is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the
U.S. retail market.


DEL MONTE: Paid $0.2-Mil. in Wage and Hour Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In connection with its settlement of a wage and hour class action
lawsuit, Del Monte Corporation paid the claims settlement amounts
totaling approximately $0.2 million during the three months ended
January 27, 2013, 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 27, 2013.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
served against the Company and was filed in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The complaint was served on behalf of
five named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at a
manufacturing facility in Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint
alleged that the Company violated the FLSA and state wage and hour
laws by failing to compensate plaintiffs and other similarly
situated workers unpaid overtime.  The plaintiffs sought
compensatory and statutory damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs
sought class certification.  On November 5, 2010, in connection
with the Company's removal of this case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with
the Company's answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial
dismissal on November 5, 2010.  The parties jointly stipulated
that the causes of action in plaintiff's complaint for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit would be dismissed without prejudice
and further stipulated that the cause of action under the
Minnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed without prejudice.
The Court signed an order dismissing those claims on December 28,
2010.

The Company and the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to a conditional
certification of the class on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs sent
out notices to the potential class on April 28, 2011, and 53
plaintiffs opted in to the lawsuit.  On November 14, 2011, the
Company and the plaintiffs agreed to a proposed settlement of the
lawsuit in the amount of approximately $0.2 million.  The
Plaintiffs submitted the proposed settlement to the Court on
February 15, 2012, and received preliminary approval from the
Court on March 13, 2012.  The notices to class members were sent
out on April 19, 2012.  The deadline for filing a claim was June
18, 2012, and approximately 11% of the class filed claims.  The
Court signed the Order approving the settlement on October 4,
2012.

During the three months ended January 27, 2013, the Company paid
the claims settlement amounts, totaling approximately $0.2
million.

Del Monte Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Del Monte is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the
U.S. retail market.


DEL MONTE: "Mazur" Suit to Proceed in Pa. After MDL Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mazur v. Del Monte Corporation
will now proceed in Pennsylvania after the denial of a motion to
consolidate under the federal rules for multi-district litigation,
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 27, 2013.

On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product
liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that plaintiff's dog became ill and had to
be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats.
The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its
warranties and Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in
excess of $5.0 million.  The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

On August 3, 2012, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to
consolidate the previously filed two similar class actions against
Nestle Purina Petcare Company, owner of the Waggin' Train brand of
chicken jerky treats, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation ("MDL").  The Plaintiffs' motion also sought to include
the case against the Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as
a "related case."  On September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL
motion.  The case will now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it
was originally filed.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Del Monte is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the
U.S. retail market.


DEL MONTE: Two Motions Remain Pending in "Kosta" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss and a motion seeking application of the
doctrine of collateral estoppel in the class action lawsuit styled
Kosta v. Del Monte Corporation remains pending, 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 27, 2013.

On April 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Kosta
v. Del Monte) alleging false and misleading advertising under
California's consumer protection laws.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0
million.  On June 15, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint.  The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on July 6, 2012, negating the Company's motion to dismiss.  In its
amended complaint, plaintiff alleges the Company made a variety of
false and misleading advertising claims including, but not limited
to, its lycopene and antioxidant claims for tomato products;
implying that its refrigerated products are fresh and all natural;
implying that Fresh Cut vegetables are fresh; and making
misleading claims regarding sugar, nutrient content, preservatives
and serving size.  The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint on July 31, 2012.  A hearing on this motion was held on
December 4, 2012.  The Plaintiffs moved on November 5, 2012, to
seek application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this
matter based on the jury's finding in the Fresh Del Monte case.
The Company's Response to the plaintiff's Motion for Application
of Collateral Estoppel was filed on January 17, 2013.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Del Monte is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the
U.S. retail market.


DEL MONTE: "Webster" Suit Remanded Back to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Webster v. Del Monte Corporation
has been remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, 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 27, 2013.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court (Webster v. Del
Monte) alleging false advertising under California's consumer
protection laws, negligence, breach of warranty and strict
liability.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false advertising by representing that the Chicken
Jerky Treats are healthy, wholesome, and safe for consumption by
dogs, and alleges that the plaintiff's pet became ill after
consuming Chicken Jerky Treats.  The allegations apply to all
other putative class members similarly situated.  The complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.  The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

On September 6, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to
remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion
to amend its complaint to remove the federal class action claims
and remand the case back to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The Company subsequently stipulated to the plaintiff's motion, and
the case has been remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Del Monte is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the
U.S. retail market.


DIAMOND FOODS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California,
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.

Beginning on November 7, 2011, the first of a number of putative
securities class action lawsuits was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Diamond and certain of its former executive officers
("defendants").  These lawsuits allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, regarding Diamond's financial results, operations
and prospects, including its accounting for payments to walnut
growers and the anticipated closing of Diamond's proposed
acquisition of the Pringles business from The Procter & Gamble
Company ("P&G").  On January 24, 2012, these class actions were
consolidated by the court as In re Diamond Foods Inc., Securities
Litigation.  On March 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, and on June 13, 2012, the court appointed legal counsel
for the plaintiff.  On July 30, 2012, an amended complaint was
filed in the consolidated action naming Diamond, certain of its
former executive officers and the Company's outside auditor as
defendants.  The amended complaint purports to allege claims
covering the period from October 5, 2010, through February 8,
2012, and seeks compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs and
expenses incurred in the action and other relief.

On September 28, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the action.  On
November 30, 2012, the Court denied Diamond's motion, allowing the
matter to proceed with respect to Diamond and the former executive
officers, and dismissed claims against Diamond's outside auditor
with leave to amend.  On December 21, 2012, Diamond and the former
executive officers filed answers to the amended complaint.

Diamond Foods, Inc. is an innovative packaged food company focused
on building and energizing brands.  Diamond specializes in
processing, marketing and distributing snack products and
culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts.  The Company is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Wins Initial OK of Settlement in "Rubery" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on April 2, 2013, entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement of Rubery v. Caplan et al., 07 Civ. 8612 (JPO), a
consolidated derivative action involving various claims against
certain current and former directors and officers of E*TRADE
Financial Corporation.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs each alleged that the Defendants
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, prospects, and financial condition, including that the
Company was experiencing material increases in mortgage
delinquencies and that the Defendants had failed properly to
reserve and account for probable loan losses.  The Plaintiffs
further alleged that, as a result of improvident lending in
violation of stated underwriting policies, the Company would incur
significant asset write downs, charge-offs and losses and would be
forced out of the wholesale mortgage business.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, E*Trade will implement
or maintain a set of corporate governance and oversight reforms
for a period of not less than four years following final approval
of the settlement, subject to certain limitations. The parties did
not reach an agreement on the amount of attorneys' fees and
expenses that should be awarded in the action, however, but have
agreed to present the matter to the Court for resolution.
Plaintiffs indicated in the settlement materials that they intend
to seek up to $6,800,000 in attorneys' fees and $150,000 in
reimbursement of expenses.

The Court scheduled a September 13, 2013 hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement and the issue of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and expenses. If the Court grants final approval of the
settlement, the derivative litigation would be dismissed with
prejudice.   The Company believes that the costs and expenses
associated with the proposed settlement will not impact the
Company's financial condition.

A copy of the Stipulation of Settlement is available at
http://is.gd/0RDuph

Co-lead counsel to the Plaintiffs are:

          Craig W. Smith, Esq.
          Julia M. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: jwilliams@robbinsumeda.com
                  notice@robbinsumeda.com
                  mumeda@robbinsumeda.com
                  mgolovach@robbinsumeda.com
                  athompson@robbinsumeda.com
                  gaguilar@robbinsumeda.com
                  jrazzouk@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107-1324
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430
          Facsimile: (212) 810-2427
          E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

Counsel for Nominal Defendant E*TRADE and the Individual
Defendants are:

          Amelia T.R. Starr, Esq.
          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 701-5800
          E-mail: amelia.starr@dpw.com
                  dennis.glazer@dpw.com
                  nancy.ludmerer@dpw.com
                  ecf.ct.papers@dpw.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hutchinson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company is awaiting a court decision on a motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by Timothy A.
Hutchinson, 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 February 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer,
the President and Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer, as a putative class action lawsuit under the federal
securities laws, claiming that certain Company statements
concerning the Company's business and financial results were
misleading (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez, Philip J.
Faraci, and Antoinette McCorvey).  The Court granted the Company's
July 2, 2012 motion to dismiss this case as against all defendants
but granted the plaintiff's subsequent motion for leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint in which they
seek damages with interest, equitable relief as applicable, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Defendants have moved to dismiss
the case.

The Company believes that the securities lawsuit is not uncommon
for companies in Chapter 11. On behalf of the defendants in both
cases, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
will vigorously defend them on their behalf.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/--
commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New
Jersey.


EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit in New York remains pending, 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 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S.
subsidiaries (the "Filing Subsidiaries," and together with the
Company, the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy
Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case Number 12-10202.

Subsequent to the Company's Chapter 11 filing, between
January 27, 2012, and March 22, 2012, several putative class
action lawsuits were filed in federal court in the Western
District of New York, as putative class action lawsuits, against
the current and certain former members of the Board of Directors
(Board), the Company's Savings and Investment Plan (SIP) Committee
and certain former and current executives of the Company.  The
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), styled as In
re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation, and the current and former
members of the Board have been dismissed from those lawsuits.  The
allegations concern the decline in the Company's stock price and
its alleged impact on SIP and on the Company's Employee Stock
Ownership Plan.  The Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to
the applicable plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an
independent fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the litigation.

The Company believes that the ERISA lawsuits are not uncommon for
companies in Chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in both
cases, the Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit
and will vigorously defend them on their behalf.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/--
commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New
Jersey.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend Elscint Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of Elscint,
according to the Company's March 11, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In November 1999, a number of institutional shareholders of
Elscint filed a claim in the District Court of Haifa, together
with a request to approve certain causes of action set out in the
claim, as a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of
Elscint, and a request for certain causes of action to be treated
as a derivative action against various defendants, including
Elscint, Elbit Imaging, Elron and Europa Israel to which Elron
sold its holdings in Elbit Imaging in May 1999, and certain
officers in the defendant companies.  The claim alleges, mainly,
that Elbit Imaging is duty bound to make a tender offer for the
shares of Elscint held by the public and that it unlawfully
refuses to do so and, in addition, it raises allegations of
preference of the interests of the defendants over those of
Elscint and its public shareholders with respect to a number of
transactions involving Elscint that the plaintiffs allege
discriminated against Elscint's public shareholders

In June 2007, the plaintiffs submitted to the Haifa District Court
an updated statement of claim and request to approve the claim as
a class action.  The updated claim claimed compensation for
damages sustained due to the alleged failure to effect the tender
offer, but no longer sought an order compelling the tender offer.
The updated statement of claim does not specify the monetary
amount claimed, but did include various allegations relating to
the manner of determining the damages claimed.

The Haifa District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to
approve the claim as a class action but the plaintiffs appealed
and in May 2012 the Supreme Court handed down a judgment in which
it partially accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs regarding
the District Court's rejection of the motion to approve their
claim as a "class action" against the various defendants including
the Company. In the said judgment, it was determined, inter alia,
that the motion for approval of the claim as a "class action" was
accepted with some modifications and directions as to the conduct
of the proceeding as detailed in the judgment and the case was
returned to the District Court to conduct the claim as a "class
action" against all of the defendants, including the Company and
its former officers as detailed in the said judgment.  The main
cause of action alleged against the Company is minority oppression
of the minority shareholders of Elscint, such that control of
Elscint was sold to someone who is anticipated to exploit the
assets of the company in an unequal manner ("Sabotage Sale").  The
Company denies the allegations against it in the action.

In September 2006 two additional claims were filed in the Haifa
District Court against the same defendants and based substantially
on the same facts of the claim filed in November 1999, along with
requests to recognize the claims as class actions.  The claims are
for an undisclosed amount.  The court has determined that at this
stage the defendants do not yet have to file statements of
defense.

The Company says it has made a provision in its financial
statements of an immaterial amount, which according to the
estimation of its management, based, inter alia, on the opinion of
its legal advisors, is sufficient to cover the financial resources
that may be required of the Company in order to expunge the claim,
if any.

Based in Tel-Aviv, Israel, Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. --
http://www.elron.com/-- is an operational holding company that
focuses on building and enhancing technology companies.  The
Company's current group companies include companies at different
stages of development and business maturation, operating in
various technology fields, such as medical device and other
fields.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte, North Carolina-based Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
March 2, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 10, that it continues to defend various wage and hour
class action lawsuits.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of store
manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation. Some of the plaintiffs
also seek to proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as
class actions under state laws. Plaintiffs seek recovery of
overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

                  The Multi-District Litigation

Many of the cases asserting claims under the FLSA were
consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding
pending in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division (the "N.C. Federal Court"). There are presently eleven
cases in the MDL proceeding in which plaintiffs are asserting
individual, class and/or collective action status. In total,
following certain dismissals and summary dispositions, 31
individually named plaintiffs currently have cases pending in the
MDL proceeding.

In two of the cases, Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward
v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the N.C. Federal Court determined
that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore,
that neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the
FLSA was appropriate. The N.C. Federal Court also granted summary
judgment against Irene Grace on the merits of her
misclassification claim under the FLSA. The plaintiffs appealed
certain rulings of the N.C. Federal Court to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Fourth Circuit"). On
March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the N.C. Federal
Court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was exempt from overtime
compensation under the FLSA. The Fourth Circuit did not address
class certification, finding the issue was moot given that the
claims had been dismissed on the merits.

In addition to the Grace decision, the N.C. Federal Court has
repeatedly ruled in favor of the Company and granted summary
judgment, finding that the plaintiffs were properly classified as
exempt from overtime pay. Thirty-eight individuals have filed
notices of appeal of these dismissals to the Fourth Circuit. The
parties have preliminarily resolved all of these appeals and the
potential settlement amount is not material.

The N.C. Federal Court dismissed all of the putative class action
cases in the MDL that were based solely on state law, and
transferred them to the appropriate state jurisdiction.

                     State Law Class Actions

The Company is a defendant in seven class action lawsuits in seven
states alleging that store managers should be non-exempt employees
under various state laws. The plaintiffs in these cases seek
recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
court costs. The states and cases are:

   * Colorado - Julie Farley v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado,
     Inc., was filed on February 7, 2012, in the United States
     District Court for the District of Colorado seeking unpaid
     overtime for a class of current and former Colorado store
     managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified
     as exempt from overtime pay under Colorado law. The parties
     have completed discovery. On February 11, 2013, the Court
     granted the Company's motion to dismiss state common law
     claims. On March 21, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs'
     motion for class certification.

   * Connecticut - Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Connecticut, Inc., was filed on October 5, 2011, in the
     Superior Court of the State of Connecticut seeking unpaid
     overtime pay for a class of current and former Connecticut
     store managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly
     classified as exempt from overtime under Connecticut law.
     The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking class
     certification. A hearing was held on the class certification
     motion on January 7, 2013, and on March 18, 2013, the Court
     entered its order denying plaintiff's motion for class
     certification. The Company has filed for summary judgment
     seeking dismissal of one of the named plaintiffs. A hearing
     was held on the dismissal motion on March 4, 2013, and a
     ruling is pending.

   * Kentucky - Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., was filed on
     February 17, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson County,
     Kentucky seeking unpaid overtime, compensation for unpaid
     breaks and for seventh day work under Kentucky law for a
     class of current and former Kentucky store managers. The
     Company removed this matter to the United States District
     Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The parties
     filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 25,
     2012, the district court granted the Company's motion for
     summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion. On
     November 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
     the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties have
     preliminarily resolved the case and the potential settlement
     amount is not material.

   * Missouri - Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
     Missouri, Inc., was filed on January 26, 2010, seeking
     unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Missouri
     store managers who presently reside in Missouri and whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime under Missouri law. This matter is pending in the
     Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the "Jackson
     County Circuit Court"). On May 10, 2011, the Jackson County
     Circuit Court certified the class under Missouri law. The
     parties are engaged in a merits discovery. The trial is set
     to begin in November 2013. The parties are currently
     involved in an ongoing mediation.

   * New Jersey - Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed
     in the United States District Court for the District of New
     Jersey on March 3, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime pay for a
     class of current and former New Jersey store managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under New Jersey law. This matter has been
     administratively dismissed by the district court.

   * New York - Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of New
     York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District
     Court for the Southern District of New York on April 2,
     2009. Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in
     the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County on
     March 4, 2009. Rancharan was removed to the United States
     District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
     May 6, 2009, and was transferred to the Southern District of
     New York where the case has been consolidated with
     Youngblood. The parties have a preliminary agreement to
     resolve this matter for a maximum payment of $14 million.
     The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on
     January 28, 2013. A final Fairness Hearing to approve the
     final settlement is set for May 23, 2013. The Company
     believes the liability recorded associated with this action
     is appropriate based on its estimate of the most likely
     payout under the preliminary settlement agreement.

   * Pennsylvania - Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., which
     was formerly pending in the N.C. Federal Court, was remanded
     back to the United States District Court for the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. In Itterly,
     plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
     current and former Pennsylvania store managers whom
     plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed in
     June 2012. The Company has filed a motion for summary
     judgment seeking dismissal of Itterly's claims in their
     entirety, which is pending before the court.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its store
managers relevant to this litigation are "exempt" employees under
the FLSA and have been and are being properly compensated under
both federal and state laws. The Company further believes that
these actions are not appropriate for collective or class action
treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims in
these actions. No assurances can be given that the Company will be
successful in the defense of these actions, on the merits or
otherwise. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these actions with
exception of the preliminary settlement of the Barker and
Rancharan/Youngblood cases.

Family Dollar operates a chain of more than 7,600 general
merchandise retail discount stores in 45 states, serving the basic
needs of customers primarily in the low- and middle-income
brackets.  The stores are supported by 10 distribution centers and
one Store Support Center. All of the stores operate under the
Family Dollar name.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Oral Arguments in 4th Cir. Appeal Set for May 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female store managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all current and former female store
managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable
relief. The case was transferred to the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

On January 13, 2012, the N.C. Federal Court denied class
certification. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Fourth
Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 14, 2013, according
to Family Dollar in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended March 2, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 10.

According to the Company, at this time, it is not possible to
predict whether the Fourth Circuit will affirm the N.C. Federal
Court's decision to deny class certification. Although the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be
given that the Company will be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to
estimate any potential loss or range of loss. The Company has
tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability
Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. At
this time, the Company expects that the EPLI carrier will
participate in any potential resolution of some or all of the
plaintiffs' claims.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Family Dollar operates a chain of
more than 7,600 general merchandise retail discount stores in 45
states, serving the basic needs of customers primarily in the low-
and middle-income brackets.  The stores are supported by 10
distribution centers and one Store Support Center. All of the
stores operate under the Family Dollar name.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Seeks D&O Insurance Coverage for Pipefitters Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended March 2, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, that it and three
of its officers are defendants in the case Pipefitters Local No
636 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
Howard R. Levine, Mary A. Winston and Michael Bloom, which was
filed on February 21, 2013, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina.  The Complaint alleges
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions
in SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements
regarding sales demand, profitability, and financial results. The
Complaint is pled as a class action. The purported class includes
certain purchasers of Family Dollar common stock between October
3, 2012, and January 2, 2013, and seeks monetary damages on behalf
of the purported class.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself and the
officers named in the Complaint, no assurances can be given that
the Company will be successful in the defense on the merits or
otherwise.  The Company has tendered the matter to its Directors
and Officers (D&O) liability carrier for coverage under its D&O
policy.

Family Dollar operates a chain of more than 7,600 general
merchandise retail discount stores in 45 states, serving the basic
needs of customers primarily in the low- and middle-income
brackets.  The stores are supported by 10 distribution centers and
one Store Support Center. All of the stores operate under the
Family Dollar name.


FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS: Seeks Dismissal of Employee Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Frisch's Restaurants, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended March 5, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, that on
September 18, 2012, a former employee filed a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for allegations of off-the-clock
work, unpaid overtime, and minimum wage violations as a result of
alleged improper application of the Tip Credit.  As part of the
collective action, the plaintiff seeks recovery for all
individuals who worked as a server at any Frisch's Big Boy
restaurant operated by the Company during the three-year period,
September 18, 2009 through September 18, 2012. The class action is
limited to servers who worked for the Company at Frisch's Big Boy
restaurants located in Ohio during the last three years.

On December 4, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration, which motion was granted on April 10, 2013.
The Company said it intends to continue defending the matter
vigorously, including efforts to pursue a class or collective
action in arbitration.

As of March 5, 2013, the Company operated 15 restaurants on
non-owned properties, including one lease that provides for
contingent rental payments based on a percentage of the leased
restaurant's sales that exceed a fixed amount.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Frisch's Restaurants, Inc., is a regional
company that operates full service family-style restaurants under
the name "Frisch's Big Boy."  All 95 Frisch's Big Boy restaurants
operated by the Company as of March 5, 2013, are located in
various regions of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana.


GILAT SATELLITE: Awaits Ruling in Class Suit Over Failed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the Central District
Court in Israel by eight individuals and Israeli companies against
Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd., all of its directors and its 20%
shareholder, York Capital Management, and its affiliates.  The
plaintiffs claim damages based on the amounts they would have been
paid had a merger agreement signed on March 31, 2008 with a
consortium of buyers closed.  On October 24, 2010 the Group filed
its defense.

The parties have completed testimony and submitted written
summaries. The lawsuit, seeking damages of approximately $12,400,
is similar to the lawsuit and motion for its approval as a class
action proceeding previously filed by the same group of Israeli
shareholders in October 2008. The October 2008 lawsuit and motion
were withdrawn by the plaintiffs in July 2009 at the
recommendation of the Court, which questioned the basis for the
lawsuit.

The Company and its independent legal counsel believe the claims
are completely without merit, and that the lawsuit is without
legal basis.  The Company intends to use all legal means necessary
to protect and defend the Company and its directors. The parties
currently await the ruling of the court, according to Gilat
Satellite Networks Ltd.'s Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 11.

Petah Tikva, Israel-based Gilat Satellite Networks provides
broadband satellite communication and networking products and
services.


GO MAX: Recalls Vegan Candy Bar Products Due to Presence of Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Go Max Go Foods LLC announces that it has taken the precautionary
measure of voluntarily withdrawing a limited quantity of vegan
candy bar products.  These products contain the following
statement on the front label: "dairy-free", which may lead to
confusion for people who have allergies to milk products.  People
who have severe sensitivity or allergies to milk may run the risk
of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The products are manufactured on shared equipment and in shared
facilities where trace amounts of dairy are present due to cross
contact.  Out of the utmost caution and care for our customers, Go
Max Go Foods LLC, is voluntarily withdrawing all of the listed
vegan candy bars with the term "dairy-free" on the front label.
These products were distributed nationwide in retail stores.  The
specific UPC codes, with the term "dairy-free", subject to this
notice are as follows:

                   Package
   Product        Size (oz)        UPC
   -------        ---------   -------------
   Snap!            1.75      899033 002057
   Cleo's           1.5       899033 002040
   Jokerz           2.1       899033 002002
   Twilight         2.1       899033 002019
   Buccaneer        2.0       899033 002026
   Mahalo           2.0       899033 002033
   Thumbs Up        1.3       899033 002064

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm348960.htm

No illnesses have been identified with the withdrawn products.  No
other Go Max Go Foods LLC, products are affected by this voluntary
withdrawal; only products with the term "dairy-free" on the front
label are affected by this voluntary withdrawal.

Consumers who have purchased any of the above listed vegan candy
bars who suffer from a severe milk allergy are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 505-988-9884, Monday through
Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time
Zone.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Litigation in Overdraft Suit vs. Bank Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation is ongoing in the class action lawsuit commenced
against a subsidiary of Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., 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 November 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Great Southern
Bank, a Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. subsidiary, in Missouri state
court in Springfield by a customer alleging that the fees
associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The lawsuit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees on their checking accounts.  The Court denied a motion to
dismiss filed by the Bank and litigation is ongoing.  At this
stage of the litigation, it is not possible for management of the
Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.

Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.greatsouthernbank.com/
-- is a bank holding company and a financial holding company and
parent of Great Southern Bank.  The Company is headquartered in
Springfield, Missouri.


H&R BLOCK: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on behalf of all H&R Block, Inc. customers in
in the United States who: (1) have opted-out of H&R Block's
arbitration agreement; (2) had tax returns prepared for them by
H&R Block Inc. for the year 2012, which included Form 8863 that
was filed before February 22, 2013; and (3) where H&R Block
determined that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund.

H&R Block customers who wish to participate in this action may
opt-out of the company's Arbitration Agreement by completing and
electronically submitting a form that can be found on the
company's Web site:

   https://www.hrblock.com/universal/clientserviceagreement/

The Complaint alleges that H&R Block erroneously and negligently
filled out and transmitted IRS Form 8863, which is used to claim
educational tax credits (the American Opportunity Credit and the
Lifetime Learning Credit), leaving a mandatory field blank.  Prior
to the current tax season, the eligibility line of Form 8863 could
be left blank and still indicate to the IRS that the taxpayer
qualified for the student tax credit.  Starting with the 2012 tax
year, the IRS began to require that certain information be entered
in the eligibility lines to indicate qualification.  However, Form
8863 in H&R Block's tax software continued to permit the line to
be left blank.  This has resulted in delays of tax refunds of 4 to
6 weeks beyond the time when they otherwise would have been paid.
It is estimated that this error affects as many as 600,000 tax
refunds.

If you believe that your 2012 tax refund has been delayed due to
an error in the Form 8863 and you have opted-out of H&R Block's
Arbitration Agreement, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Eric
Lechtzin of Berger & Montague, P.C., at 888-891-2289 or 215-875-
3038, or by e-mail at elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.bergermontague.comor may be requested from the Court.
The docket number is 3:13-cv-00346-DRH-PMF.

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation.  The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate
their practice in complex litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims
actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental
and mass torts, and have recovered several billion dollars for
consumers and investors.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal in Inkjet Printer Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Hewlett-Packard Company's
settlement of the Inkjet Printer Litigation remains pending,
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.

HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and
unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among
other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet
printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely
and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its
full capacity or to choose competitive products.

   * A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
     Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for
     the Northern District of California seeking class
     certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced
     damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys'
     fees.

   * A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
     2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California seeking class certification,
     restitution, damages (including enhanced damages),
     injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

   * A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
     May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
     Northern District of California alleging that HP designed
     its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in
     addition to black ink when printing black and white images
     and text and seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive
     class and a California-only damages class.

   * Two class actions against HP and its subsidiary,
     Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one
     commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and one
     commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are
     seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory
     relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
     compensatory and punitive damages.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes.  Under the terms of the settlement, the lawsuits were
consolidated, and eligible class members each have the right to
obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use
in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's Web site.
As part of the settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members
with additional information regarding HP inkjet printer
functionality and to change the content of certain software and
user guide messaging provided to users regarding the life of
inkjet printer cartridges.  In addition, the settlement provides
for class counsel and the class representatives to be paid
attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends.  On March 29, 2011, the
court granted final approval of the settlement.  On April 27,
2011, certain class members who objected to the settlement filed
an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit of the court's order granting final approval of the
settlement.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss C&C Workers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit commenced by the
Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund in
California, 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.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among
other things, that from November 13, 2007, to August 6, 2010, the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mark Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP.  On
February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gammel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit initiated by Richard
Gammel, 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.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010, to
August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making
false statements about HP's business model, the future of the
webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and
integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC.  On
April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
complaint.  On October 19, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that asserts the same causes of action but drops one of
the defendants and shortens the period that the alleged violations
of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011, to August 18,
2011.  On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Autonomy Acquisition Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to face class action lawsuits
related to its acquisition of Autonomy Corporation plc, 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.

HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to,
among other things, its November 20, 2012 announcement that it
recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and
intangible assets within its Software segment of approximately
$8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and
HP's statements that, based on HP's findings from an ongoing
investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to
accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and
disclosure failures at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in
connection with HP's acquisition of Autonomy Corporation plc and
the impact of those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations
on the expected future financial performance of the Autonomy
business over the long term.  This stockholder litigation was
commenced against, among others, certain current and former HP
executive officers, certain current and former members of the HP
Board of Directors, and certain advisors to HP. The plaintiffs in
these litigation matters are seeking to recover certain
compensation paid by HP to the defendants and/or other damages.
These matters include:

   * Allan J. Nicolow v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. is a
     putative securities class action filed on November 26, 2012,
     in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California alleging, among other things, that
     from August 19, 2011, to November 20, 2012, the defendants
     violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by concealing material
     information and making false statements related to HP's
     acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of
     HP's Enterprise Services business.

   * Davin Pokoik v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. is a putative
     securities class action filed on November 30, 2012, in the
     United States District Court for the Northern District of
     California alleging, among other things, that from
     August 19, 2011, to November 19, 2012, the defendants
     violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
     concealing material information and making false statements
     related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial
     performance of HP's Enterprise Services business.

   * In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation
     consists of eight consolidated lawsuits filed beginning on
     November 26, 2012, in the United States District Court for
     the Northern District of California alleging, among other
     things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
     20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information
     and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of
     Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's Enterprise
     Services business.  The lawsuits also allege that the
     defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate
     assets and were unjustly enriched in connection with HP's
     acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to repurchase its
     own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011
     and October 2012.  One lawsuit further alleges that certain
     individual defendants engaged in or assisted insider trading
     and thereby breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly
     enriched and violated Sections 25402 and 25403 of the
     California Corporations Code.

   * Miriam Birinkrant v. Michael R. Lynch, et al. is a lawsuit
     filed on December 14, 2012, in California Superior Court
     alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached
     their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were
     unjustly enriched in connection with HP's acquisition of
     Autonomy and by causing HP to repurchase its own stock at
     allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October
     2012.

   * Vincent Ho v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. is a lawsuit filed
     on January 22, 2013, in California Superior Court alleging,
     among other things, that the defendants breached their
     fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection
     with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to
     repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices
     between August 2011 and October 2012.

   * Mike Laffen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. is a putative
     class action filed on December 6, 2012, in the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of California
     alleging, among other things, that, from December 12, 2011,
     to November 22, 2012, HP, HP's 401(k) Plan Committee and
     HP's Investment Review Committee breached their fiduciary
     obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and
     thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
     ("ERISA").

   * Karyn Lustig v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. is a putative
     class action filed on December 18, 2012, in the United
     States District Court for the Northern District of
     California alleging, among other things, that from
     August 19, 2011, to November 20, 2012, the defendants
     breached their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and
     its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and
     405(a) of ERISA by concealing negative information regarding
     the financial performance of Autonomy and HP's enterprise
     services business and failing to restrict participants from
     investing in HP stock.

   * Kenneth A. Kotyuk v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. is a
     putative class action filed on January 22, 2013, in the
     United States District Court for the Northern District of
     California alleging, among other things, that from
     August 18, 2011, to November 22, 2012, HP, HP's 401(k) Plan
     Committee and HP's Investment Review Committee breached
     their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its
     participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and
     405(a) of ERISA.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Suit Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to face collective alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 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.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of HP or its subsidiary,
Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS"), have been
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other
state laws.  Those matters include:

   * Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
     Corporation is a purported collective action filed on
     May 10, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
     Southern District of New York claiming that current and
     former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or
     maintaining computer software and hardware were
     misclassified as exempt employees.  Another purported
     collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data
     Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is
     also now pending in the same court alleging similar facts.
     The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial
     purposes with the Cunningham case.  On December 14, 2010,
     the court granted conditional certification of a class
     consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the
     consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter.  Approximately
     2,600 current and former EDS employees have filed consents
     to opt in to the litigation.  The Plaintiffs had alleged
     separate "opt-out" classes based on the overtime laws of the
     states of California, Washington, Massachusetts and New
     York, but plaintiffs have dismissed those claims.

   * Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective
     action filed on June 15, 2012, in the United States District
     Court for the Western District of New York alleging that
     certain information technology employees allegedly involved
     in installing and/or maintaining computer software and
     hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under the
     Fair Labor Standards Act.  On August 31, 2012, HP filed its
     answer to plaintiffs' complaint and counterclaims against
     two of the three named plaintiffs.  Also on August 31, 2012,
     HP filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States
     District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  A hearing
     on HP's motion to transfer venue was scheduled for
     November 21, 2012, but was postponed by the court.

   * Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
     is a class action filed in November 2006 in California
     Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information
     technology workers in California were misclassified as
     exempt employees.  The case was subsequently transferred to
     the United States District Court for the Central District of
     California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of
     information technology workers in California.  On June 6,
     2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary
     judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
     On June 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary
     judgment for two of the named plaintiffs, but reversed
     summary judgment on the third named plaintiff, remanding the
     case back to the trial court and inviting the trial court to
     revisit its prior certification order.  On February 26,
     2013, the trial court issued a final order and opinion
     granting the defendant's motion to decertify the class.
     Another purported class action originally filed in
     California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic
     Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009,
     alleges similar facts and is pending in San Diego County
     Superior Court.

   * Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
     nationwide collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in
     the United States District Court for the Southern District
     of Texas claiming that a class of information technology
     support personnel were misclassified as exempt employees
     under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  On February 10, 2012,
     plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court
     conditionally certify the case as a collective action.  HP
     has opposed plaintiffs' motion for conditional
     certification, and the court has taken the motion under
     advisement.  Only one opt-in plaintiff had joined the named
     plaintiff in the lawsuit at the time that the motion was
     filed.

   * Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
     collective action filed on January 10, 2013, in the United
     States District Court for the Northern District of
     California alleging that certain technical support employees
     allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or
     supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP were
     misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
     Standards Act.  The plaintiff has also alleged that HP
     violated California law by, among other things, allegedly
     improperly classifying these employees as exempt.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Defends "Skold" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit filed against HP on June 14, 2004, that is pending in
state court in Santa Clara County, California.  The lawsuit
alleges that Intel Corporation ("Intel") concealed performance
problems related to the Intel Pentium 4 processor by, among others
things, the manipulation of performance benchmarks.  The lawsuit
alleges that HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly unlawful
conduct.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On April 19, 2012, the court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
to certify a nationwide class asserting claims under the
California Unfair Competition Law.  As to Intel, the court
certified a nationwide class excluding residents of Illinois.  As
to HP, the court certified a class limited to California residents
who purchased their computers "from HP" for "personal, family or
household use."  As required by the same order, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that limits their claims against HP to
a California class while reserving the right to seek additional
state-specific subclasses as to HP.

No further updates were reported in 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.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Inks MOU to Settle WTC Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc., and M&T Bank Corporation on April 12,
2013, entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of eighteen putative class action
lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and six putative
class action lawsuits filed in the New Jersey Superior Court,
Chancery Division, in response to the announcement that Hudson
City and M&T had entered into a definitive agreement wherein
Hudson City will merge with and into Wilmington Trust Corporation,
a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of M&T.

The 18 purported class action lawsuits related to the Merger filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery were consolidated under the
caption In re Hudson City Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No.
7850.  The six purported class action lawsuits related to the
Merger filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division,
were consolidated under the caption In re Hudson City Bancorp,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. C-259-12.

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City, M&T, the other named
defendants, and plaintiffs have reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Delaware Action and the New Jersey Action and
release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger,
subject to approval of the New Jersey Superior Court. Under the
terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved the right
to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the New
Jersey Superior Court approves the settlement contemplated by the
MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with prejudice.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to the Hudson City's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger or the timing of the special meeting of Hudson City's
stockholders, scheduled for April 18, 2013 in Park Ridge, New
Jersey, to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement.

A Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus of M&T and Hudson City, dated
February 22, 2013, describers the proposed merger of Hudson City
with and into WTC.

Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson City and M&T agreed to make available
additional information to Hudson City stockholders.

Hudson City, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson City, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to settle
the Actions to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of
further litigation.


IMMUCOR INC: Final Approval of $22MM Settlement Expected in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2007, Norcross, Georgia-based Immucor, Inc., reported
that the Federal Trade Commission was investigating whether
Immucor violated federal antitrust laws or engaged in unfair
methods of competition through three acquisitions made in the
period from 1996 through 1999, and whether Immucor or others
engaged in unfair methods of competition by restricting price
competition. On January 10, 2013, the FTC informed the Company
that it has closed its 2007 investigation of the Company.

Private securities litigation in the U.S. District Court of North
Georgia against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers asserted federal securities fraud claims on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between October 19, 2005 and June 25, 2009.  In December
2012, in exchange for a release of all claims, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff class
representatives in these actions (without acknowledging fault).

Immucor, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 12, that on March 6, 2013, it received
preliminary approval of the settlement.  Final approval is
expected in June 2013.  The proposed settlement is covered under
the Company's insurance and is not expected to impact financial
results.

The Company said operating expenses were $134.1 million for the
first nine months of fiscal 2013 and $172.2 million in combined
Successor and Predecessor same fiscal 2012 period, a year-over-
year decrease of $38.1 million or 22.1%.  The $22.0 million
settlement of the antitrust class action lawsuit as well as $33.2
million related to the acceleration of share-based compensation
expense, severance expenses, and transaction costs that all relate
to the Acquisition drove the increase in operating expenses during
the first nine months of fiscal 2012 when compared with the first
nine months of fiscal 2013.  The difference was partially offset
by a $9.8 million increase in amortization of intangibles, a
disposition and retirement loss of $1.2 million on fixed assets,
and $5.1 million increase in selling and marketing expenses
primarily due to additional personnel costs and associated
expenses related to the Company's investment in its commercial
sales and marketing infrastructure in the first nine months of
fiscal 2013.

Immucor develops, manufactures and sells a complete line of
reagents and automated systems used primarily by hospitals, donor
centers and reference laboratories in a number of tests performed
to detect and identify certain properties of human blood for the
purpose of blood transfusion.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc., is awaiting court decisions on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
lawsuit in New York, 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 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, or the SDNY or the Court, against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers.
The complaint, or the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from February 17, 2011, through November 10, 2011, or the
Allegation Period.  On December 27, 2011, a second purported class
action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as,
and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY
against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory
damages for the Allegation Period.  On April 3, 2012, the Court
consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead
counsel in the consolidated action, or the Consolidated Class
Action.  On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that, in addition to the original allegations made in
the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in
the Company's April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material
information required to be stated therein in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The defendants filed their
motions to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012 and, in response to
the lead plaintiff opposition to the defendants' motions filed on
September 17, 2012, the defendants filed their replies to
plaintiff's opposition on October 10, 2012.  The Defendants'
motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and are currently
pending before the Court.

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

Based in New York, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.intralinks.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely
managing content, exchanging critical business information, and
enabling inter-enterprise collaboration worldwide.


LLOYDS TSB: Ct. Certifies Two Classes in Int'l. Loan Products Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In JOHN DUGAN, AURORA DUGAN, and MATTHEW TAPSCOTT, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC, Defendant, No. C 12-02549
WHA, (N.D. Cal.)., District Judge William Alsup issued a ruling
granting in part a motion for class certification, appointing
class representatives, and appointing class counsel.

In this proposed class action involving international loan
products, the Plaintiffs moved for certification of five classes
and subclasses.

But Judge Alsup disagreed, saying the Plaintiffs' five proposed
classes are unmanageable and collapse under their own weight.
"[T]he motion can be pared down to two certification-worthy
classes," he said.

The Court certified a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) class
under Hong Kong Law:

  All IMS borrowers obligated to Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC at any time
  since May 17, 2006, whose loan documents expressly were governed
  under the law of Hong Kong and included a 120% Clause and who
  currently reside in the United States and for whom a first-class
  mailing address is known, but excluding all borrowers whose loan
  documents include a forum-selection clause other than the United
  States. This class is for both declaratory relief and damages.

The Court also certified an injunction/restitution class under
California unfair competition law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, et seq.):

  All IMS borrowers obligated to Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC at any time
  since May 17, 2006, whose loan documents expressly were governed
  under the law of Hong Kong and included a 120% Clause and who
  currently reside in California now and for whom a first-class
  mailing address is known, but excluding all borrowers whose loan
  documents include a forum-selection clause other than
  California.

Both classes focus on the 120% Clause, the damages/declaratory
relief class being nationwide and the Section 17200
injunction/restitution class being limited to California.

The Plaintiffs' request to certify a Cost of Funds class was
denied.

Judge Alsup appointed John Dugan and Aurora Dugan as class
representatives for the two certified classes.

Attorneys William Swank, Larry Janssen, Stephen Fennell, Libretta
Stennes, and Lawrence Riff of the Steptoe firm were appointed as
class counsel for both classes.

According to Judge Alsup, the Dugans must execute an
acknowledgment of their fiduciary duty to the classes, of the fact
that they will be the only class representatives, and of the
selection of Steptoe  -- and only Steptoe -- as their counsel.
This must be filed by May 2.

"Counsel shall have until MAY 2 to identify and agree on which
language in the absent class members' loan agreements is
substantially similar for the purposes of the 120% Clause. If
counsel fail to reach agreement, the class members with non-
conforming language will be excluded from the classes.  Any party
that contends a clause is substantially different from the clause
here at issue shall be hereafter estopped from arguing that any
ruling herein favorable to that party should be extended to said
clause.  Counsel shall file a list of all 120 percent clauses and
shall indicate which are jointly deemed substantially similar and
which are not (and the name of the party contending they are not).
Also by MAY 2, counsel shall submit an agreed-on form of class
notice, plan of dissemination, and time table and shall submit a
list (under seal) of all names and mailing addresses of all class
members. This list shall comprise the class to be bound by the
judgment," ruled Judge Alsup.

No claim excluded from class treatment may be included in any
settlement, he added.

A copy of the District Court's April 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/39UpqVfrom Leagle.com.


MANDA PACKING: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
meat and poultry deli products (roast beef, ham, turkey breast,
tasso pork, ham shanks, hog head cheese, corned beef, and
pastrami) that have been recalled by Manda Packing Company.

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

   Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
   -------------------------------------------------
   Retailer Name       Location
   -------------       --------
   Albertsons          Stores in AR, IL, LA, TX
   ALPS                Stores in IL, MO, KY, OK
   Brookshire Brothers Stores in LA, TX
   Brookshire's        Stores in AR, LA, TX
   C.V.'s Family Foods Stores in AR, OK

   Cash Saver          Stores in AL, AR, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO,
                       OH, OK, TN, TX

   County Market       Stores in AR, IL, IN, IA, LA, MS, MO
   Dierberg's Market   Stores in IL, MO
   El Rancho           Stores in TX
   Fiesta Mart         Stores in TX
   Food Giant          Stores in AR, AL, KY, MO, MS,TN
   Food Pyramid        Stores in OK
   G & W Foods         Stores in AR, KS, MO
   Greer's             Stores in AL, FL, MS
   Harps               Stores in AR, MO, OK
   Hays                Stores in AR, MO
   Houchen's Market    Stores in KY

   IGA                 Stores in AR, AL, FL, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA,
                       MS, MO, OH, OK, TN, VA

   JR Food             Stores in KY, TN
   Kroger              Stores in LA, TX
   Lawrence Brothers   Stores in TX
   Mac's Fresh Market  Stores in AR, LA, MS
   Mad Butcher         Stores in AR
   Marvin's Supermkts. Stores in AR, KS, OK
   Pic Pac             Stores in KS, LA

   Piggly Wiggly       Stores in AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, MO,
                       OK, TN

   Price Cutter        Stores in AR, MO, OK
   Ramey's Supermarket Stores in AL, MO, MS
   Rouse Supermarket   Stores in LA, MS
   Safeway             Stores in IN, LA
   Sam's Club          Stores AL, FL, LA, MO
   Shop 'N Save        Stores in AL, IL, MO
   Town & Country
   Supermarket         Stores in AR, LA, MO
   Vowell's
   Marketplace         Stores in MS

   Walmart             Stores in AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY,
                       LA, MO, MS, NC, NE, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA

   Winn Dixie          Stores in AL, FL, GA, LA, MS
   Wood's              Stores in KS, MO

A copy of the complete list of retailers that received the
recalled products and the stores' locations is available for free
at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/RC_028_2013_Retail_List.pdf


MATTEL INC: $172.5-MM Judgment on Trade Secrets Claim Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, among other things,
vacated the portion of a judgment awarding damages and attorney's
fees and costs to MGA Entertainment, Inc., for prevailing on its
trade secrets misappropriation claim, totaling approximately
$172.5 million, according to Mattel, Inc.'s March 11, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and
assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"),
during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his
contractual and other duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant
asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in
which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed a lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its Chief Executive
Officer Isaac Larian, certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.
The RICO claim alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by
recruiting and hiring key Mattel employees and directing them to
bring with them Mattel confidential and proprietary information,
unfairly competed against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets,
confidential information, and key employees to build their
business.  On January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to
file these claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases,
which Mattel did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions.  The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim.  The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million.  The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs.  The Court entered a
judgment which totaled approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel appealed the judgment, challenging on appeal the entirety
of the District Court's monetary award in favor of MGA, including
both the award of $170 million in damages for alleged trade secret
misappropriation and approximately $140 million in attorney's fees
and costs.  On January 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a ruling on Mattel's appeal.  In that ruling, the
Court found that MGA's claim for trade secrets misappropriation
was not compulsory to any Mattel claim and could not be filed as a
counterclaim-in-reply.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated
the portion of the judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees
and costs to MGA for prevailing on its trade secrets
misappropriation claim, totaling approximately $172.5 million.  It
ruled that, on remand, the District Court must dismiss MGA's trade
secret claim without prejudice.  In its ruling, the Court of
Appeals also affirmed the District Court's award of attorney's
fees and costs under the Copyright Act.  Accordingly, Mattel has
recorded a litigation accrual of $137.8 million during the fourth
quarter of 2012 to cover these fees and costs.

Mattel, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety
of toy products worldwide, which are sold to its customers and
directly to consumers.  Mattel is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeal From Summary Judgment Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by Merge Healthcare Incorporated's insurer from a
summary judgment remains pending, 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.

In January and February 2010, purported stockholder class action
complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts, in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s (AMICAS) proposed
acquisition by a third party.  In March 2010, because AMICAS had
terminated the merger agreement with that third party and agreed
to be acquired by Merge, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims as moot.  Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel filed an
application for approximately $5 million of attorneys' fees.
AMICAS opposed the fee petition, tendered the defense to its
insurers that provided coverage against such claims and retained
litigation counsel to defend the matter.  On December 4, 2010, the
Massachusetts court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3.2 million
in attorneys' fees and costs.  AMICAS appealed this judgment to
the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.  After receipt of the
Massachusetts court's attorneys' fee award decision, AMICAS's
insurer denied policy coverage for approximately $2.5 million of
the fee award and filed a declaratory judgment action to that
effect against AMICAS and Merge in Federal court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The Company contested the insurer's denial
of coverage, asserted its rights under the applicable insurance
policies and filed a counterclaim against the insurer seeking full
payment of the Massachusetts court's fee award, plus additional
damages.  On April 30, 2012, the Illinois Federal court ruled in
favor of the Company's motion for summary judgment, which decision
was appealed by the insurer to the United States Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.  That appeal, which has been briefed and argued
by the parties, is pending.

In late February 2013, the insurer settled the Massachusetts court
case by agreeing to pay $2.99 million to plaintiffs' counsel and
further agreeing not to pursue AMICAS or Merge for any portion of
the amount paid.  The Company believes that the Massachusetts
settlement has rendered moot the Seventh Circuit appeal, except
for the insurer's claim to reimbursement for a portion of the fees
it advanced in the Massachusetts appeal, which the Company
believes is less than $0.2 million and with respect to Merge's
claims for additional damages from the insurer.  As a result of
the Massachusetts settlement, the Company anticipates recognizing
a contingent gain, if not all, of the Company's recorded liability
of $2.5 million to other, net in the Company's statement of
operations with respect to these matters in the first quarter of
2013 based on the February 27, 2013 appellate court dismissal
date.

Merge Healthcare Incorporated -- http://www.merge.com/-- develops
software solutions that facilitate the sharing of images to create
a more effective and efficient electronic healthcare experience
for patients and physicians.  The Company is a Delaware
corporation that was founded in 1987, and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


MERIT BIRD: Recalls Vitae Products Due to Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merit Bird Company, LLC of Chatsworth, California, is recalling
the following items with lot codes; Vitae Cockatiel with Sunflower
2 lbs., (#2840081), Vitae Cockatiel with Sunflower 4 lbs.,
(#2840090), Vitae Small Hookbill 4 lbs., (#2840225), Vitae Small
Hookbill 20 lbs., (#2840234), Vitae Hookbill with Sunflower 4
lbs., (#2840252), Vitae Large Hookbill 4 lbs., (#2840279) shipped
between May 2012 to February 2013, because it has the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Animals with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some animals
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Infected but otherwise healthy animals can be carriers and infect
other animals or humans.  If your animals have consumed the
recalled product and have these symptoms, please contact your
veterinarian.  "Vitae bird food was distributed through Southern
California retail pet stores.

The bags in question are packaged in a factory sealed plastic bag
or a white bulk bag for the 20# size.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was the result of a routine testing performed by
Specialty Commodities, which revealed that the finished products,
which include parsley that is on recall from Specialty
Commodities, contain Salmonella.  The Company has ceased the
production and distribution of the product as FDA and the Company
continue their investigation as to what caused the problem.

If you still have any bags on hand, please return them immediately
to the place of purchase or Merit Bird Company for a full refund.

Information on what consumers should do with the product and where
they can get additional information (e.g., consumers) who have
purchased Vitae Bird Food are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-818-727-
1655, Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Pacific Standard
Time.


NATURA PET: Recalls Dry Pet Foods Due to Possible Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natura Pet Products is voluntarily expanding its March 29, 2013
recall of dry pet foods because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella.  The expanded recall now includes
all dry pet food products and treats with expiration dates prior
to and including March 24, 2014.  Please see the table below for
details of affected products.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

Sampling conducted by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and
the Georgia Department of Agriculture confirmed the presence of
Salmonella in additional dry pet food and a cat pet treat.  In an
abundance of caution, Natura is also recalling product made in the
surrounding timeframe.  This action affects dry pet foods and
treats only; no canned wet food or biscuits are affected by this
announcement.

The affected products are sold through veterinary clinics and
select pet specialty retailers nationwide and in Canada, Hong
Kong, Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, and Costa
Rica, as well as online.

Consumers who have purchased these pet foods should discard them.
For additional information, consumers may visit
http://www.naturapet.com/. For a product replacement or refund
call Natura toll-free at 800-224-6123 (Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. Central Standard Time).

   Brand                Description
   -----                -----------
   California Natural   All dry dog and dry cat food and treat
                        varieties

   EVO                  All dry dog and dry cat food and treat
                        varieties
                        All ferret food varieties

   Healthwise           All dry dog and dry cat food and treat
                        varieties

   Innova               All dry dog and dry cat food and treat
                        varieties

   Karma                All dry dog food varieties

Recall is for All Sizes, All UPCs, All Lot Codes, and All
expiration dates prior to and including MARCH 24, 2014.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm345636.htm

No canned wet food or biscuits are affected by this announcement.

                    About Natura Pet Products

Natura Pet Products is recognized as a trusted name behind natural
and holistic pet foods and treats.  Founded more than 20 years ago
by John and Ann Rademakers and Peter Atkins, Natura is dedicated
to providing the best natural nutrition.  Natura is committed to
making premium pet foods and treats based on nutritional science
and high-quality ingredients, combined with trusted manufacturing
processes, for complete pet health.  Lines include: Innova(R),
California Natural(R), EVO(R), HealthWise(R), Mother Nature(R) and
Karma(R).  To learn more about Natura Pet Products visit
http://www.NaturaPet.com/


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Goffstown Women's Prison Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Corwin, writing for StateImpact New Hampshire, reports that
women cook their own meals at the Goffstown Women's Prison, but
unlike their male counterparts, they cannot receive culinary
certification.

Nearly 24 years after the courts first ordered a new facility for
female inmates, the New Hampshire House has approved a capital
budget with $38 million set aside for a 224-bed women's prison in
Concord.

Now, a class action lawsuit is driving lawmakers to act.

85 percent of the women here at the Goffstown prison face mental
health problems.  Another 85 percent face substance abuse issues,
and most suffer from both.  The most common sentence is theft,
followed by forgery, and then murder.

It can take 5 or 6 tries to get any given door to open at the
Goffstown womens prison.  And that's after the guard in the
control room has unlocked it.  But, if you're persistent, you can
get where you're trying to go.

Almost ten years ago, Holly Wheatley stole $24,000 by forging
checks issued by the state.  She was a state employee.

Over the hum of vending machines in the prison visitors room,
Ms. Wheatley says she's 4 years into her 6 year minimum sentence.

"I don't want to come back to prison, when I set foot out of these
doors, that's it.  I don't want to come back," Ms. Wheatley said.

When Ms. Wheatley gets out of prison, she wants a job that will
help her pay restitution, support her family, and contribute to
society.  She hopes to work in the restaurant industry, she says,
because she loves cooking:

"It's a relaxer, for me.  It makes me happy," Ms. Wheatley said.

Ms. Wheatley cooks meals for the 150 or so other inmates in the
Goffstown prison's kitchen.  She also makes things like nachos
from canteen items, during her free time:

"We can throw down some pretty good things that would make most
chefs be like 'you can do that in prison?'," Ms. Wheatley said.

If she were at the men's prison in Concord, Ms. Wheatley could
earn a culinary certificate, and take mechanics and carpentry
classes transferable at nearby colleges.

The women inmates are limited to putting holes into cribbage
boards shaped like the state of New Hampshire -- and painting
butterflies onto miniature butterfly houses.

But things may be different for future inmates.

Since the 1970s, changes at New Hampshire prisons have happened
when prisoners sue the state, and the court orders something
change.  That's how women inmates ended up in Goffstown in the
1980s.  Before that, New Hampshire shipped them to federal prisons
out of state.  Court orders and consent decrees also forced the
state to add health programs, educational classes, and a secure
psychiatric ward to the men's prison.  It's not always easy.

It's almost the rule rather than the exception that court orders
come and court orders go and nothing happens.  Why? Because it
usually takes an infusion of resources.

Legal Assistance attorney Elliot Berry has represented New
Hampshire inmates for more than twenty years.  He says it's hard
for lawmakers -- in any state -- to increase spending on
corrections -- even with a court order to do so.

"The needs of convicted felons are not high on the list of
priorities for legislators," Mr. Berry said.

But this time around, lawmakers seem ready to act.  The suit filed
by three female inmates against the state seeks educational and
health services on par with the programs already available at the
men's prison.

Corrections Commissioner Bill Wrenn says he has been asking the
legislature for the money to build a new women's prison -- since
Governor Lynch appointed him eight years ago.

"We don't approve the budgets, that's something the Governor and
the legislature does.  Y'know, all we can do then is try to
convince those powers to be, that we have certain needs that need
to be funded," Mr. Wrenn said.

Representative David Campbell chairs the public works committee.
He says lawmakers fear the consequences of a successful trial:

"The concern of the House, is that the courts could come in, tell
us when to build a prison, tell us how, where to build a prison,
how much a prison should cost, and that control over programming
and the prison in general."

Lawmakers' fear of a court order may help Commissioner Wrenn get
the new women's prison and programming he's been requesting all
these years.  That's if the Senate signs off on the capital
budget, like the House did:

"This is the first time we've seen it go as far as it has to
date," Mr. Wrenn said.

Back at the visitor's room at Goffstown, Holly Wheatley says she
wants the next two years to be her last two years in prison:

"What's sad for me is to watch people leave and come back and
leave and come back and leave and come back," Ms. Wheatley said.

She says having the space and staff to learn marketable skills
will make it easier for inmates like her to get on track, and stay
on track.


NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Over 2006 Water Acquisitions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurissa Smith, writing for ABC Rural, reports that more than
100 irrigators who had their groundwater cut in southern NSW
several years ago are back in court.

The group is pursuing a class action against the NSW Government,
challenging the science and methods it used to determine the cuts.
Greg Sandford, the chairman of the Murray Valley Groundwater Class
Action, says they want the 2006 Water Sharing Plan overturned.

"I think what should have happened in the first place is if the
government was actually willing to sit down and negotiate in the
first place, this thing could have been resolved," he said.

"If the plan is overturned and the government doesn't wasn't do
anything else, we'll get our water back."

Ian McDonald was the NSW Water Minister at the time the Water
Sharing Plan for the Lower Murrary was implemented in 2006.
Irrigators were told their groundwater would be reduced by 68 per
cent because the NSW government had over-allocated licenses.  Some
farmers had their licenses cut by 84 per cent.

Around 178,000 megalitres of groundwater left the Murray Valley.
Farmers were compensated for 10 per cent of the water that was
taken, but many received nothing because of their history of use.

The trial in the Land and Environment Court is expected to run for
three weeks.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Received Final OK of Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc., received final approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in
October 2012, 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.

Following the Company's public announcement that it would restate
certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company's
accounting treatment for certain exploration and development
costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010, and April 7, 2010.  These
complaints asserted claims against the Company and certain
directors and officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  One complaint also asserted claims
for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the
Securities Act.  All three complaints alleged claims on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 6, 2008, or May 7, 2008, and February 23, 2010, or
February 24, 2010.  These three lawsuits were consolidated by the
Court in an order issued on June 3, 2010, and the Court appointed
three of the Company's stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint (CAC) on July 9, 2010, that asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 7, 2008, and February 24, 2010.  The CAC alleged that certain
of the Company's public statements were false and misleading for
failing to account properly for the Company's exploration and
development costs based on the Company's announcement on February
24, 2010, that it was going to restate certain of its financial
results to change its method of accounting for exploration and
development costs in certain respects.  The CAC also alleged that
certain of the Company's statements concerning the North Brawley
project were false and misleading.  The CAC sought compensatory
damages, expenses, and such further relief as the Court may deem
proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010.
On March 3, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company's statements regarding the North
Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss
plaintiffs' allegations regarding the 2008 restatement.  The
Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding
the restatement on April 8, 2011, and the case entered the
discovery phase.  On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 25,
2009, and February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to
the motion for class certification on October 4, 2011.

Subsequently, the parties participated in mediation where they
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class
action lawsuits.  The parties thereafter filed a stipulation of
settlement with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
on March 27, 2012, providing that the claims against the Company
and its directors and officers will be dismissed with prejudice
and plaintiffs will release the defendants from all claims in
exchange for a cash payment of $3.1 million to be funded by the
Company's insurers.  The stipulation of settlement received
preliminary approval by the Court on March 30, 2012, and final
approval on October 16, 2012.

The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly
maintained that the claims raised in the securities class action
lawsuits were without merit, and have vigorously contested those
claims.  As part of the settlement, the Company and the individual
defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the
securities laws or otherwise.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ormat.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Reno, Nevada.  The Company is a
leading vertically integrated company primarily engaged in the
geothermal and recovered energy power business.  The Company
designs, develops, builds, owns and operates clean,
environmentally friendly geothermal and recovered energy-based
power plants, usually using equipment that the Company designs and
manufactures.


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
April 24, 2013 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit
filed by the firm on behalf of investors who purchased the stock
of Poseidon Concepts Corp. during the period from May 9, 2012 to
February 14, 2013 seeking to recover damages for violations of the
federal securities laws.

To join the Poseidon class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
pkim@rosenlegal.com  or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Poseidon and certain of its officers and directors for
issuing materially false and misleading financial information
about the Company.  The Complaint asserts that Poseidon falsely
overstated revenue and earnings by over 200% during the Class
Period. The lawsuit asserts that this adverse information caused
shareholders to lose nearly the entire value of the investment.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 24, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com.  You may also
visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


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

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

  Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
  -------------------------------------------------
  Retailer Name               Location
  -------------               --------
  A&P                         Stores in NJ and NY

  Albertson's                 Stores in AR, ID, LA, MT, ND, NV,
                              OR, TX, WA and WY

  Alco                        Nationwide

  Apple Market                Stores in KS, MO and NE
  Big Y                       Stores in CT, and MA
  Bi-Lo                       Stores in GA, NC, PA, SC and TN

  BJs                         Stores in CT, DE, FL, MA, ME, MD,
                              NH, NJ, NC, NY, OH, PA, and VA

  Brookshire Brothers         Stores in AR, LA, and TX
  Bruno's                     Stores in AL
  Coborn's                    Stores in MN
  Country Mart                Stores in AR, KS KY, MO, and OK
  Dahl's                      Stores in IA
  Demoulas Markets            Stores in MA
  Dillons                     Stores in KS, MO and NE
  Dominick's                  Stores in IL
  Fareway                     Stores in IA

  Food 4 Less                 Stores in CA, IL, IN, LA, MO and NV

  Food City                   Stores in KY, TN and VA

  Food Lion                   Stores in DE, GA, KY, MD, NC, PA,
                              SC, TN, VA, and WV

  Fred Meyer                  Stores in AK, ID, OR and WA
  Fresh Market                Stores in UT
  Fry's Food and Drug         Stores in AZ,
  GFS (Gordon Food Service)   Stores in PA
  Giant                       Stores in DC, DE, MA, MD, PA and VA
  Giant Eagle                 Stores in MD, OH, PA and WV

  Hannaford                   Stores in CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI,
                              and VT

  Harmon's                    Stores in UT
  Harp's                      Stores in AR and MO

  Harris Teeter               Stores in DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, NC,
                              SC, TN, and VA

  Harvey's                    Stores in FL, GA, and SC
  HEB                         Stores in TX
  Homeland                    Stores in OK

  IGA                         Stores in AL, CT, IL, IN, KS, KY,
                              MI, MO, NC, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA

  Ingles Markets              Stores in GA, NC, SC, and TN
  Jewel                       Stores in IA, IL, IN and UT
  King Soopers                Stores in CO

  Kroger                      Stores in AL, AR, AZ, DE, GA, IL,
                              IN, KY, MI, MO, MS, NC, OH, SC, TN,
                              TX, UT, VA, WA, and WV

  Market Basket               Stores in MA, NH, LA, and TX
  Marsh                       Stores in IN and OH

  Meijer                      Stores in AR, IL, IN, KY, MA, MI,
                              MO, NY, NH, OH, and VT

  Pathmark                    Stores in DE, NJ, NY, and PA
  Piggly Wiggly               Stores in AL, LA and MS

  Price Chopper               Stores in AL, AR, CT, GA, NY, KS
                              KY, LA, MA, MO, MS, NY, OK, PA, RI,
                              TN, and VT

  Publix                      Stores in AL, FL, GA, SC, and TN
  Quality Food Center         Stores in OR and WA
  Ralph's                     Stores in CA
  S&S (Shop and Save)         Stores in CT, MA, NJ, NY, RI and OH

  Safeway                     Stores in AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, IN,
                              MD, NJ, OR, and VA, WA

  Schnuck's                   Stores in MO
  Shaw's                      Stores in MA, ME, NH, RI and VT
  Shop Rite                   Stores in NJ, NY, and PA
  Smart and Final             Stores in AZ, CA, and NV

  Smith's                     Stores in AZ, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT
                              and WY

  Stewart's Shops             Stores in NY and VT
  Stop & Shop                 Stores in CT, MA, NH, NJ, NY and RI
  Sweetbay                    Stores in FL
  Supervalu                   Stores in CO, OR, and UT
  Target                      Stores in AZ, FL, IA, and TX
  Thriftway                   Stores in ID, KS, MO, NE, and UT
  Tops                        Stores in CT, NY, PA and VT
  United Supermarkets         Stores in OK and TX
  Von's                       Stores in CA
  Waldbaums                   Stores in NY
  Walmart                     Nationwide
  Wegman's                    Stores in NY and PA
  Weis                        Stores in MD, NY, NJ, PA, and WV
  Winn-Dixie                  Stores in AL, FL, GA, LA and MS

A copy of the complete list of retailers that received the
recalled products and the stores' locations is available for free
at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/RC_025_2013_Retail_List.pdf


SA NATIONAL PARKS: Cape Town Mulls Class Action Over Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
News24 reports that an action group in Cape Town has sought legal
advice to see if Table Mountain crime victims can take class
action against SA National Parks and the city, it was reported on
April 11.

More than 270 people have fallen victim to crime on the Table
Mountain range, reported the Cape Times.  If class action was not
feasible, the group would turn to Public Protector Thuli
Madonsela, said Andre van Schalkwyk, head of the Table Mountain
Safety Action Group.  This action followed the rape of a 19-year-
old Norwegian exchange student on Signal Hill at the weekend.

No arrests had been made.

"There's liability here.  There needs to be some kind of class
action for people who were hurt in these incidents," said
Mr. van Schalkwyk.

He said he was acting out of "sheer desperation and anger".

A closed meeting between SANParks, the city, police, Cape Town
tourism and other authorities was held to discuss the latest
attack and decide on security measures.  According to the report,
SANParks had applied to the city to control access to Signal Hill
road and Tafelberg Road after hours.  Up to three SANParks members
would man the control point.  Other measures included refurbishing
an existing CCTV camera and installing license plate recognition
cameras.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Class Cert. Bid in Song-Beverly Act Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned KEVIN FAULK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEARS
ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 11-CV-02159 YGR, (N.D.
Cal.).

Mr. Faulk moved to certify California and nationwide classes of
purchasers of tires from Sears, Roebuck and Company to whom Sears
allegedly failed to disclose all terms and conditions of its tire
warranties, including the requirement that the purchaser rotate
and align the tires at specified intervals.  The Second Amended
Complaint alleges five causes of action for violations of the
California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Sections 1790 et seq. (First and Second Causes of Action); the
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17200 et seq. (Third Cause of Action); the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq. (Fourth
Cause of Action); and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 2301 et seq. (Fifth Cause of Action).

Mr. Faulk sought to certify a sub-class of California consumers
for violations of California state laws (the First through Fourth
Causes of Action) and a nationwide sub-class for violations of
Federal warranty law (the Fifth Cause of Action).


On April 19, 2013, Judge Rogers denied the Motion to Certify.

"While Plaintiff has demonstrated at least one issue in common
with all putative class members, Plaintiff has not shown that this
issue predominates over the myriad individual issues. As such,
Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that this case should be
litigated on a classwide rather than individual basis," Judge
Rogers concluded.

A copy of the District Court's April 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/XaFkfrfrom Leagle.com.


SKECHERS: Shape-Up Shoes Class Action Settlement Awaits Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSYR-TV reports that the Federal Trade Commission and shoemaker
Skechers have reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over
the company's Shape-up toning shoes case in May 2012, but people
who are anticipating refunds will have to wait a little longer.

The Web site -- http://SkechersSettlement.com/-- says the deal
still needs the court's final approval.  They could receive
approval any day or many months from now.  And then, people
expecting refunds will need to wait many more months while claims
are reviewed.  The earliest a claimant could expect to see a check
is by late summer -- barring any appeals.

Under the agreement, Skechers has agreed to establish a
$40 million, non-reversionary fund to be used for the payment of
class claims.  The deal has won preliminary Court approval.

The claims deadline was April 18, 2013 and claims can no longer be
submitted online.  Claims postmarked after April 18, 2013 will not
be accepted.

The case is Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00204
(W.D. Ky.).

The Class Counsel is:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119

Defense counsel:

          Jeffrey A. Barker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Prepares Stipulation to Resolve Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties of the class action lawsuit titled James E. Fisher v.
Suffolk Bancorp, et al., are currently preparing a stipulation of
settlement for submission to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, 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 October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E.
Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the Company, its former chief executive officer, and
a former chief financial officer of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly
making false statements about, or failing to disclose accurate
information about, the Company's financial results and condition,
loan loss reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure
controls, and banking practices.  The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 12, 2010, and August 10, 2011.  On
October 15, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The District Court has been informed that the parties have agreed
to a resolution of the action and are in the process of preparing
a Stipulation of Settlement for submission for the Court's
approval.

Management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
matter will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated
financial statements.

Suffolk Bancorp -- http://www.suffolkbancorp.com/-- was
incorporated in 1985 as a bank holding company.  The Company
currently owns all of the outstanding capital stock of the Suffolk
County National Bank of Riverhead.  The Company is based in
Riverhead, New York.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Continues to Defend Shareholder MDL in N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. continues to defend itself against a
shareholder multidistrict litigation in North Carolina, according
to the Company's March 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

There have been six shareholder lawsuits filed in federal courts
in North Carolina and New York asserting claims relating to the
Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Company's
Board conclusion that the Company's previously issued interim
financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31,
2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 2011, and the other
financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form
10-Q for the periods then ended, should no longer be relied upon
and that an internal review by the Company's Audit Committee
primarily relating to possible adjustments to the Company's
financial statements was ongoing.

On March 30, 2012, a purported Company shareholder commenced a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers and
sellers of the Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the
former President and Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and
the former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("former
CFO").  The plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's
public filings.  In April and May 2012, four more putative
securities class actions were filed by purported Company
shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina against the same set of defendants.  The
plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") based on alleged false and
misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings.  In each
of the putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs seek
damages for losses suffered by the putative class of investors who
purchased Swisher common stock.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative action was brought
against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's
directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another
purported Company shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In this derivative action, the
plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of
a possible restatement of the Company's financial statements.

On May 30, 2012, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO
filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the
cases in the Western District of North Carolina by requesting that
the actions filed in the Southern District of New York be
transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.

In light of the motion to centralize the cases in the Western
District of North Carolina, the Company, and its former CEO and
former CFO requested from both courts a stay of all proceedings
pending the MDL Panel's ruling.  On June 4, 2012, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York adjourned all
pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer
filed before the MDL Panel.  On June 13, 2012, the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued a stay of
proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel.

On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to
centralize, transferring the actions filed in the Southern
District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina.
In response, on August 21, 2012, the Western District of North
Carolina issued an order governing the practice and procedure in
the actions transferred to the Western District of North Carolina
as well as the actions originally filed there.

On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held
an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel
and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a
schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint
and defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to the
consolidated class action complaint.  The Western District of
North Carolina stayed the derivative action pending the outcome of
the securities class actions.

Swisher Hygiene Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries provide
essential hygiene and sanitizing solutions to customers throughout
much of North America and internationally through its global
network of Company-owned operations, franchises and master
licensees.  The Company is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.


US XPRESS: Settles Drivers' Class Action Over $2.75 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Kell-Holland, writing for Land Line, reports that a
Chattanooga, Tenn., trucking company has agreed to settle a
lawsuit for $2.75 million.  Members of the class action lawsuit
claimed the company violated the Fair Credit and Reporting Act by
failing to properly disclose its hiring practices, including
criminal background checks.

U.S. Xpress Inc., which has more than 7,000 drivers, agreed to
settle the punitive class action lawsuit on Friday, April 5,
pending approval from U.S. District Court Judge Curtis Collier for
the Eastern District of Tennessee in Chattanooga.

According to court documents, Robert R. Bell Jr., named plaintiff
in the class action lawsuit, applied for a trucking job with U.S.
Xpress back in October 2009.  Mr. Bell claims the company did not
ask him verbally or in writing to authorize the procurement of a
consumer report through HireRight Solutions Inc.

The company's decision not to hire him was based on information
they obtained through the HireRight criminal background report,
which falsely claimed that Mr. Bell "had been convicted of felony
burglary, felony, robbery, grand larceny and several parole
violations, all leading to a 10-year prison sentence."  However,
none of the crimes had been committed by Bell.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Bell states he did not find out why he wasn't
hired by U.S. Xpress until he received a derogatory letter and a
copy of the report from HireRight in the mail nearly a week later.

U.S. Xpress estimates the settlement class may consist of
approximately 72,000 truck drivers, who applied for a job with the
company from July 8, 2009, to Dec. 31, 2011.


VELTI PLC: U.S. Subsidiary Facing Class Suit Threat
---------------------------------------------------
Velti plc disclosed in a Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 11, that one of its subsidiaries has been
threatened with a class action lawsuit for alleged involvement in
a U.S. campaign where its vendor is alleged to have failed to
follow applicable law in implementing a campaign.

Velti plc noted that the United States Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or TCPA, prohibits unsolicited voice and text
calls to cell phones by use of an auto-dialing system unless the
recipient has given prior consent. The statute also prohibits
companies from initiating telephone solicitations to individuals
on the national Do-Not-Call list, unless the individual has given
prior express consent or has an established business relationship
with the company, and restricts the hours when such messages may
be sent. In the case of text messages, a company must obtain
written opt-in consent to send messages to a mobile device.
Violations of the TCPA can result in statutory damages of $500 per
violation (i.e., for each individual text message). U.S. state
laws impose additional regulations on voice and text calls.

The Company also noted that there are EU member state and other
country laws that govern SMS and telecommunications-based
marketing, generally requiring senders to transmit messages
(including those sent to mobile devices) only to recipients who
have specifically consented to receiving such messages.

Dublin, Ireland-based Velti delivers mobile technology to
transform communication, build connections and drive value for
brands and consumers alike.  Velti completed the acquisition of
Mobclix, Inc., an advertising exchange in the U.S. in 2010;
Air2Web, Inc., a provider of mobile customer relationship
management (mCRM) solutions in the United States and India in
2011; Mobile Interactive Group Limited, the U.K.'s largest mobile
marketing company also in 2011; and the remaining equity interests
of CASEE, a mobile ad exchange and mobile ad network in China, in
2012.


VELTI PLC: Dismissal, Arbitration Bids Pending in Air2Web Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Velti plc disclosed in a Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 11, that on June 14, 2012, Air2Web, Inc., was
named as a defendant in a consolidated class action complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a purported class of lessees of
common short codes used in application-to-person SMS messaging. In
re A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-2656 (AJN).  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants, which include all major
U.S. wireless carriers, CTIA - The Wireless Association(R), WMC
Global, Inc., and certain aggregators (including Air2Web) violated
federal antitrust law by conspiring to reduce competition and fix
prices in, and conspiring to monopolize, the market for
application-to-person SMS transmission in the United States. The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble damages, in an
undisclosed amount, jointly and severally from all defendants for
injuries allegedly sustained from April 5, 2008, until the
present.

On August 14, 2012, several groups of defendants, including
Air2Web, filed motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety,
and a number of defendants also filed motions to compel
arbitration of this dispute and to stay these proceedings pending
arbitration.  A decision on those motions is pending.  Plaintiffs
have not yet responded to those motions.

Velti plc said the action is in its very early stages, and due to
the inherent uncertainties surrounding the litigation process, it
is unable to reasonably assess the likelihood of any particular
outcome at this time.

Dublin, Ireland-based Velti delivers mobile technology to
transform communication, build connections and drive value for
brands and consumers alike.  Velti completed the acquisition of
Mobclix, Inc., an advertising exchange in the U.S. in 2010;
Air2Web, Inc., a provider of mobile customer relationship
management (mCRM) solutions in the United States and India in
2011; Mobile Interactive Group Limited, the U.K.'s largest mobile
marketing company also in 2011; and the remaining equity interests
of CASEE, a mobile ad exchange and mobile ad network in China, in
2012.


VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Indiana High Court Won't Review Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paris, France-based Veolia Environnement disclosed in a Form 20-F
Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, the
Supreme Court of Indiana on March 14, 2013, unanimously denied the
request for review of orders dismissing class action lawsuits
against two of the Company's subsidiaries, Veolia Water North
America Operating Services and Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC.

In April 2008, the two subsidiaries were named as defendants in
two potential class actions filed before the Indiana state courts,
which have since been consolidated.  The plaintiffs allege that
the meter-reading practices used by VWI for Indianapolis customers
were inconsistent with VWI's contract with the local water
authority and with Indiana consumer protection law.  The
plaintiffs claim that VWI billed customers on the basis of
estimates of water usage, rather than actual usage, more
frequently than the contract permitted, resulting in overcharges
that, although later credited to the customers, deprived the
customers of their money for a period of time. The plaintiffs also
contend that the methods used by VWI to estimate water consumption
were inappropriate and violated applicable laws. The plaintiffs
are seeking certification of a class of similarly situated
residential water customers.

VWI believes that its billing and meter reading practices complied
with the contract and with relevant laws and regulations, and that
the claims of the plaintiffs are without merit. It intends to
defend its interests vigorously.

On January 13, 2009, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed
by Veolia Water North America Operating Services and VWI, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to refile their complaint. On January
23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Veolia
Water North America Operating Services and VWI, and also named the
water authority of the City of Indianapolis as a defendant.
Mediation was conducted on April 6, 2010, but was not successful.
Motions for summary judgment by the City and the Veolia entities
thereafter were granted in part and denied in part. A motion for
reconsideration by the Veolia entities was granted, leaving only a
breach of contract claim against the Veolia entities and the City.

On September 23, 2011, the City and the Veolia entities each moved
to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that
plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by
not first raising the matter before the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission. The court conducted a hearing on the motions on
December 20, 2011. On February 1, 2012, the court issued an order
granting defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. On November 8, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Indiana
affirmed the dismissal. Plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of Indiana requesting it to
review the lower court's dismissal. VWI opposed this request for
review. On March 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Indiana
unanimously denied the request for review.

"Although at this stage of the proceedings it is not possible to
estimate the potential financial consequences, we believe that
this lawsuit will not significantly affect our financial position
or results of operations," the Company said.

Veolia Environnement is an international company focused on the
environmental services sector, currently operating through three
divisions, Water, Environmental Services and Energy Services and,
through Veolia Transdev (which the Company is currently
divesting), in the Transportation sector.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Defends "Sanders" Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc., is defending itself against a securities
class action lawsuit pending in California, 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 March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.  The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc.
et al., Case No. C 13-1038, is brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14,
2011, and February 19, 2013, and asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-
5 for securities fraud and control person liability.  The claims
are brought against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers, and are based on allegations that the Company and
the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
financial controls during the putative class period.  The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

If the class action is resolved adversely to the Company, this
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

San Jose, California-based VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global
provider of payment solutions that enable secure electronic
payment transactions and value-added services at the point of
sale.  The Company provides payment solutions and expertise at the
POS via merchant-operated, consumer-facing, and self-service
systems.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Securities Suit Returned to District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities litigation against VeriFone Systems,
Inc., was returned to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California for further proceeding, 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 or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.  On August 22, 2008, the court
appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its
attorneys lead counsel.  The Plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts
claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person
liability against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, based on allegations that the
Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding the Company's business and operations
during the putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss
on December 31, 2008.  The court granted the Company's motion on
May 26, 2009, and dismissed the consolidated amended class action
complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The
proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009
at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable
settlement.

The lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on December
3, 2009, followed by a second amended complaint filed on January
19, 2010.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the hearing on the Company's motion was held
on May 17, 2010.  In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the
Company's motion, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint on the basis that it had newly
discovered evidence.  Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by
the court the Company submitted its motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint and lead plaintiff filed its opposition,
following which the court took the matter under submission without
further hearing.  On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in the
Company's favor and dismissed the consolidated securities class
action without leave to amend.  On April 5, 2011, the lead
plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the district court's
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
June 24 and June 27, 2011, the lead plaintiff dismissed its appeal
as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig
Bondy.  The lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal on
July 28, 2011.  The Company filed its answering brief on September
28, 2011, and the lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on October
31, 2011.  A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was held
before a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012.

On December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion
reversing the district court's dismissal of the consolidated
shareholder securities class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, with the exception of the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  On
January 4, 2013, the Company filed a petition for en banc
rehearing with the Ninth Circuit.  On January 30, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit denied the petition for rehearing.  On February 8, 2013,
the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for further
proceeding on plaintiffs' claims, except for the dismissed Section
20(a) claim.  The Company has agreed with lead plaintiff to hold a
mediation on March 26, 2013.

San Jose, California-based VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global
provider of payment solutions that enable secure electronic
payment transactions and value-added services at the point of
sale.  The Company provides payment solutions and expertise at the
POS via merchant-operated, consumer-facing, and self-service
systems.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Suit in Israel Has Been Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. disclosed in its March 11, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2013, that the stockholder lawsuit
pending in Israel has been stayed.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.  The Company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the motion was
held on May 25, 2008.  Further briefing in support of the stay
motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of
applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.  On September 11,
2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the Company's favor,
holding that U.S. law would apply in determining its liability.
On October 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme
Court.  The Company's response to the plaintiffs' appeal motion
was filed on January 18, 2009.  The Israeli District Court has
stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.  On January 27, 2010,
after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court
dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed
the case back to the Israeli District Court.  The Israeli Supreme
Court instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the
Israeli class action should be stayed, under the assumption that
the applicable law is U.S. law.  The Plaintiffs subsequently filed
an application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's
ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding
the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010,
the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision
regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court.  In
August 2010, the plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli
Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130
S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently
pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be
added to the Court's record.  The Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to
reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to
the Israeli class action, as well as to cancel its decision to
stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in
light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.  On August
25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying the
plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law
applicable to the Israeli class action is U.S. law.  The Israeli
District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case
be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.

On November 13, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended application
for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's
ruling.  VeriFone filed an amended response on December 28, 2011.
On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered
consideration of the application by three justices.  On July 2,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered VeriFone to file an
updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S.
securities class action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012.  On October 11, 2012,
VeriFone filed an updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme
Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further
hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and
confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the
federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the
Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to
the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February
4, 2013.

San Jose, California-based VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global
provider of payment solutions that enable secure electronic
payment transactions and value-added services at the point of
sale.  The Company provides payment solutions and expertise at the
POS via merchant-operated, consumer-facing, and self-service
systems.


WEST ELM: Recalls 900 Floor Lamps Due to Injury & Shock Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, West Elm, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of San
Francisco, California; and manufacturer, Modern Home, of
Guangdong, China, announced a voluntary recall of about 900 floor
lamps.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A failure of the lamp's joint locking mechanisms can cause the
lamp to collapse and the electrical cord to spark, posing injury
and shock hazards to consumers.

The firm has received 24 reports of product failures, including 10
incidents of lamps collapsing and three incidents of the cord
sparking.  There have been no reports of injuries.

This recall involves Industrial Overarching model floor lamps with
an iron base and arm in an antique bronze finish, one light socket
and a round natural linen shade.  They are approximately 78 inches
tall and have a swiveling triple-jointed adjustable arm and an
ON/OFF foot switch at the base.  The lamp's shade is about 12.5
inches high, 18.5 inches in diameter at the top, and 21 inches in
diameter at the bottom.  Model number 192799, 192856, 465906 or
465922 and "Industrial Overarching Floor Lamp" appear on the on
the lamp's packaging.  The model name and the date of manufacture
in MM/YYYY format are printed on a sticker affixed to the
underside of the base.  Dates of manufacture included in the
recall are between 08/2012 (Aug. 2012) and 02/2013 (Feb. 2013).

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2013/West-Elm-Recalls-Floor-Lamps/

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at West
Elm stores, catalog and online nationwide from December 2012
through February 2013 for about $380 with the shade and $300
without the shade.

Consumers should immediately unplug the recalled lamp and return
it to West Elm for a full refund, including return shipping.  West
Elm may be reached toll-free at (855) 776-6953, from 7:00 a.m. to
midnight Eastern Time everyday, or online at
http://www.westelm.com/and click on Safety Recalls at the bottom
of the page for more information.


* Goal Group Says Australia Biggest Settlement Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that
international class action consultancy Goal Group has established
an office in Melbourne after the company's research identified
Australia as one of the world's most promising jurisdictions for
this form of litigation.

By 2020, the company expects annual class action settlements in
the Asia-Pacific to be worth AUD3.4 billion ($3.2 billion), the
largest regional total outside the US.

Goal Group's Australian representative, Andreas Costi, said the
nation's class action settlements were expected to remain the
biggest single contributor to the Asia-Pacific's world ranking.

After the US, Australia and Canada were jostling for position as
the jurisdiction with the biggest class action settlements, he
said.

"It's a growing model in Australia -- you've got people like
Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon and (litigation funder) IMF,"
Mr. Costi said.

"People in Australia are now getting the idea of participating in
class actions and getting money back for super funds, custodial
clients and fund managers.

"If you don't participate in these actions you are literally
throwing money away."

Goal Group, based in London with offices in Philadelphia and Hong
Kong, helps corporate clients recover losses by joining class
actions around the world.

The company, which says it has helped clients recover between
AUD320 million and AUD350 million in the past 10 years, takes a
percentage of any damages.  But it says its fee is far more modest
than the 25-30 per cent generally charged by litigation funding
companies.

Goal Group does not finance litigation but uses advanced software
to monitor class action developments globally then notifies its
clients, helps calculate the size of their claims, completes and
submits claim documentation, collects any payout and distributes
the money.

"All a client has to do is literally give us their trade data and
we calculate the loss for them and they get a check at the end of
it," he said.  "We can offer a global suite of class actions.

"I'm here to educate Australian banks, fund managers and supers
that they can participate in these actions and it is not going to
cost them anything.

"Since arriving here I've become aware of just how important the
superannuation funds are.  If they are investing in US stocks and
they can claim back a few million, they should be doing it."

A former banker, Mr. Costi has worked at Deutsche Bank, Macquarie
Bank and the Royal Bank of Canada.  Since establishing the group's
Melbourne office in February he has been engaged in talks with
litigation funders, law firms and potential corporate clients.

One of the factors driving the growth of the company's class
action business was the fact that financial custodians had a
fiduciary duty to make an effort to recover losses on behalf of
their clients, Mr. Costi said.

Another factor contributing to class action growth outside the US
was the 2010 decision of the US Supreme Court in NAB v Morrison
that precludes non-US investors from obtaining compensation from
foreign companies through the US court system.


                             *********

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  * * *