CAR_Public/130429.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 29, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 83

                             Headlines


7TH HEAVEN: Recalls Oatmeal Raisin Cookies Due to Allergens
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Santa Cruz County
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Overtime Class Action
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bids to Arbitrate in WARN Suits Pending
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Suit Currently in Discovery

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: FINRA Appeals Panel's Class Action Ban Ruling
CHILDREN'S APPAREL: Recalls 9,200 Girl's Clothing Sets
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final OK of Merger Suits Deal
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Class Suits vs. Unit

GHIRARDELLI: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss White Chocolate Suit
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Collecting Illegal Court Fees
HERBALIFE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme
HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Services in Alaska Tradelane Pending
HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation vs. Unit

HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Consolidated LIBOR-Related Suit in N.Y.
HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Madoff-Related Suits and Investigations
HRB TAX: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination Against Blind
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Individual Defendants in "Timm" Suit Dismissed
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Marentes" Suit

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement in "Gilmor" Suit Approved in March
INTERLINE BRANDS: Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending
MANAGED HEALTH: MFLC Overtime Pay Action Conditionally Certified
NVIDIA CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in NVIDIA GPU Litigation Remains Pending

NVIDIA CORP: "Granfield" Suit in Massachusetts Now Over
OHIO: Job and Family Services Dept. Sued for Seizing Money
OMNIVISION TECH: Judge Won't Disturb Misrepresentation Claims
QWEST COMMS: Awaits OK of Settlement in Rights-of-Way Suits
REED AND BARTON: Recalls 4,000 Baby Gingham Bunny Forks & Spoons

SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Suit for Giving Late Notice of Breach
SHIRE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Sham Patent Litigation
SIX FLAGS: Faces Overtime Class Action
STERLING BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
SVTC TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Initial Approval of Hoa Tran Suit Deal

TARGET CORP: Recalls 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis Lasagna Pans
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Gates' Second Amended Complaint
YAMASHITA RUBBER: Faces Suit Over Rubber Market Manipulation
ZST DIGITAL: Faces Class Action for Withholding Information


                             *********


7TH HEAVEN: Recalls Oatmeal Raisin Cookies Due to Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------
7th Heaven Bakeries, in Oklahoma City, is recalling OATMEAL RAISIN
COOKIES, because they may contain undeclared dry eggs, soy
lecithin, and whey solids.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggs, soy and milk run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Oatmeal Raisin Cookies were distributed for retail sale to
7-Eleven Stores in the OKC Metro Area (Oklahoma City, Moore,
Norman, Noble, Midwest City, Del City, Edmond, Bethany, Nichols
Hills, The Village, Yukon, Warr Acres, and Mustang, Oklahoma).

The cookies are individually wrapped, and labeled with a round,
7th Heaven Bakeries label that is orange and yellow, with Best by
Dates prior to 05/07/13.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm349279.htm

This recall was initiated after it was discovered during an FDA
inspection that Oatmeal Raisin Cookies containing dry egg, soy and
milk were distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of egg, soy and milk.  No reports of illness have been
received to date.  The Company corrected the label on 4/23/2013
and removed any mislabeled cookies from the stores.  "Eggs, Soy
and Milk" are now listed on the label.

Consumers who have purchased 7th Heaven Oatmeal Raisin Cookies
with Best By dates prior to May 7, 2013, may return the cookies
for replacement.  Consumers with questions may contact the
Company, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Central Standard
Time at 405-682-5711.


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Santa Cruz County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Avon stiffs district sales
managers for overtime, a class action claims in Santa Cruz County
Court.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America and its
LandSafe subsidiary stiff appraisers for overtime, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bids to Arbitrate in WARN Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s motions to compel binding
arbitration with the court are currently pending, according to the
Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On October 24, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court by former employee Marla Montano naming
the Company and Ashford University as defendants.  The case is
entitled Marla Montano v. Bridgepoint Education and Ashford
University.  The complaint asserts a putative class consisting of
former employees who were terminated in January 2012 and July 2012
as a result of a mass layoff, relocation or termination and
alleges that the defendants failed to comply with the notice and
payment provisions of the California Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.  A substantially similar complaint,
entitled Dilts v. Bridgepoint Education and Ashford University,
was also filed in the same court on the same day by Austin Dilts
making similar allegations and asserting the same putative class.
The complaints seek back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and
interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company and Ashford University are currently evaluating these
actions and intend to vigorously defend against them.

On January 25, 2013, the Company filed motions to compel binding
arbitration with the court, which are currently pending.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Suit Currently in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education,
Inc., is currently in discovery, according to the Company's
March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Ashford University and University of
the Rockies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.  The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc., et al, and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students.  The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005, through the present.  In March
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October
2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss.  In May 2012, the
Court granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Ashford University.  The Court
also granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended
complaint.  In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint asserting similar claims and the same class period.  The
second amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief,
disgorgement of all profits, various other equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees.  The defendants filed a motion to strike portions
of the second amended complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part.  The lawsuit is proceeding to discovery.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is asking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University.  The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July
6, 2012.  A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012.  Finally, on July 26, 2012,
another purported securities class action complaint was filed in
the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based
upon the same general set of allegations and class period.  The
complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
consolidated action and filed a motion to dismiss on February 19,
2013.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


CHARLES SCHWAB: FINRA Appeals Panel's Class Action Ban Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Godfrey & Kahn S.C. reports that FINRA is appealing a FINRA
hearing panel decision which ruled that a class-action ban in a
customer agreement with a brokerage firm is consistent with
federal law and recent Supreme Court interpretations of the
Federal Arbitration Act (Act).

In October 2011, Charles Schwab amended its customer account
agreement to include a provision requiring customers to waive
their rights to bring or participate in class actions against the
firm (class-action waiver).  The amended agreement also included a
provision requiring customers to agree that arbitrators in
arbitration proceedings would not have the authority to
consolidate more than one party's claims (consolidation language).
FINRA charged that both provisions violated FINRA rules concerning
language or conditions that firms may place in customer
agreements.

In February 2013, a FINRA hearing panel concluded that the class-
action waiver violated FINRA rules designed to preserve judicial
class actions as an alternative to arbitration, even when there is
a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.  However, the panel concluded
that the FINRA rules may not be enforced.  The panel held that
enforcement is foreclosed by the Act and Supreme Court decisions
that held adjudicators must enforce agreements to go to
arbitration to resolve disputes and must reject any public policy
exception that disfavors arbitration, unless Congress itself has
indicated an exception to the Act.

If not overturned, the panel's decision may lead other broker-
dealers to amend their brokerage contracts to prohibit customers
from participating in class-action lawsuits.  FINRA could respond
to the panel's decision by requiring broker-dealers to abide by
"fair play" rules that include access to courts if they wish to
remain members of FINRA.

In the same hearing, FINRA did prevail in one of its actions
against Schwab.  The panel concluded that the consolidation
language violated FINRA rules by attempting to limit and
contradict a FINRA arbitration rule that specifies circumstances
in which arbitrators may arbitrate consolidated claims.  The panel
further concluded that the Act does not bar enforcement of these
rules because the Act does not dictate how an arbitration forum
should be governed and operated or prohibit the consolidation of
individual claims.  The panel fined Schwab $500,000 and ordered it
to take corrective action to remove the consolidation language
from its agreements.


CHILDREN'S APPAREL: Recalls 9,200 Girl's Clothing Sets
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Children's Apparel Network, of New York, announced a voluntary
recall of about 9,200 Girl's Three-Piece Clothing Sets.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The vest sold with these sets has a belt at the waist that could
become snagged or caught in small spaces or vehicle doors and it
poses an entanglement hazard.  In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves girl's "Young Hearts" brand three-piece
clothing sets.  The sets were sold with a pink vest, black
pullover shirt and knit pants in sizes 12 months to 6X.  "Young
Hearts" is printed on a label inside the shirt collar.  The pink
vest has a black bow applique on the left front and a pink elastic
belt with silver clasps.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/pmZ4tb

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Conway, Citi Trends, Duckwall-Alco and other children's apparel
stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from September 2012 to
December 2012 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately remove the belt from the vest to
eliminate the hazard, or return the set to the store where
purchased for a full refund.  Children's Apparel Network may be
reached at (800) 919-1917 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.childrensapparelnetwork.com/and click on "PRESS."


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final OK of Merger Suits Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., is awaiting final
approval of its settlement of merger-related class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 2, 2012, the Company completed the merger with SureWest
Communications, which resulted in the acquisition of 100% of all
the outstanding shares of SureWest for $23.00 per share in a cash
and stock transaction.

Prior to the completion of the SureWest Merger on July 2, 2012,
six putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged SureWest
shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with
SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH
Acquisition II Corp, SureWest and members of the SureWest board of
directors have been named as defendants.  Five shareholder actions
were filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer County, and
one shareholder action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California.  The actions are
called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed February
17, 2012, Errecart v. Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012,
Springer v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 9, 2012,
Aievoli v. Oldham, et al., filed March 15, 2012, and Waterbury v.
SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 26, 2012, and the
federal action is called Broering v. Oldham, et al., filed April
18, 2012.  The actions generally allege, among other things, that
each member of the SureWest board of directors breached fiduciary
duties to SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of
SureWest to the Company for consideration that allegedly was
unfair to the SureWest shareholders and agreed to terms that
allegedly unduly restrict other bidders from making a competing
offer.  The complaints also allege that the Company and SureWest
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly
committed by the members of the SureWest board of directors.

The Broering complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on March 28,
2012, did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the merger,
that SureWest's board should have appointed an independent
committee to negotiate the transaction and that SureWest should
have gone back to another bidder to create a competitive bid
process.  The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including an order
to prevent the defendants from consummating the merger on the
agreed-upon terms and/or an award of unspecified monetary damages.
On March 14, 2012, the Placer County Superior Court entered an
order consolidating the Needles, Errecart and Springer actions
into a single action under the caption In re SureWest
Communications Shareholder Litigation.  Under the terms of this
order, all cases subsequently filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Placer, that relate to the same
subject matter and involve similar questions of law or fact were
to be consolidated with these cases as well.  This included the
Aievoli and Waterbury cases.  On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff in
Waterbury filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her complaint
without prejudice.  On May 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the federal Court entered an order staying the
Broering action for 90 days.  The federal Court subsequently
extended the stay of the Broering action until June 1, 2013.  On
June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a proposed settlement of
all of the shareholder actions without any admission of liability
by the Company or the other defendants.  Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, SureWest agreed to make, and subsequently made,
certain additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC in advance of the special meeting of SureWest
shareholders held on June 12, 2012.  The proposed settlement also
provided that plaintiffs' counsel collectively are to receive
attorneys' fees of $0.525 million, of which the Company is to pay
$36,250, with the balance to be paid by SureWest and its insurer.
The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the Placer
County Superior Court.  On December 20, 2012, the court issued a
ruling preliminarily approving the proposed settlement.

The court has set a hearing for March 28, 2013, for the final
approval of the proposed settlement.  Upon final approval by the
court, the consolidated state court actions and the federal action
will be dismissed with prejudice.

Headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois, Consolidated Communications
Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.consolidated.com/-- is a Delaware
holding company with operating subsidiaries providing a wide range
of communications services to residential and business customers,
including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband
Internet access, video services, digital telephone service, custom
calling features, private line services, carrier grade access
services, network capacity services over the Company's regional
fiber optic networks, directory publishing and Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier services.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Class Suits vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., is defending a
subsidiary against pending class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Pennsylvania RSA No. 6 (II) Limited Partnership (the
"Partnership") and Cellco Partnership ("Cellco," doing business as
Verizon Wireless) are subject to lawsuits and other claims
including class actions, product liability, patent infringement,
intellectual property, antitrust, partnership disputes, and claims
involving relations with resellers and agents.  Cellco is also
currently defending lawsuits filed against it and other
participants in the wireless industry alleging various adverse
effects as a result of wireless phone usage.  Various consumer
class action lawsuits allege that Cellco violated certain state
consumer protection laws and other statutes and defrauded
customers through misleading billing practices or statements.
These matters may involve indemnification obligations by third
parties and/or affiliated parties covering all or part of any
potential damage awards against Cellco and the Partnership and/or
insurance coverage.  The Company says all of the matters are
subject to many uncertainties, and the outcomes are not currently
predictable.

Headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois, Consolidated Communications
Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.consolidated.com/-- is a Delaware
holding company with operating subsidiaries providing a wide range
of communications services to residential and business customers,
including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband
Internet access, video services, digital telephone service, custom
calling features, private line services, carrier grade access
services, network capacity services over the Company's regional
fiber optic networks, directory publishing and Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier services.


GHIRARDELLI: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss White Chocolate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mccann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to let Ghirardelli off the hook from a federal class
action alleging that its white chocolate chips do not actually
contain any white chocolate.

Lead plaintiff Scott Miller bought a package of Ghirardelli white
chocolate chips in June 2012, and discovered the next day that
they did not taste like white chocolate.

"He reviewed the ingredients list on the packaging and noticed
that the white chips contained no white chocolate, cocoa, or cocoa
butter," according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's
summary of the complaint.

The class action accuses Ghirardelli of misrepresenting the white
chocolate content in its chocolate chips, wafers, white chocolate
flavor, mocha mix, and frappes.  It alleges violations of Food and
Drug Administration regulations, as well as various state-law
infractions such as false advertising, unfair competition and
fraud.

Miller, a resident of Auburndale, Fla., sued in San Francisco,
where Ghirardelli is based.  The confectioner removed the case to
U.S. District Court and sought dismissal, arguing that Miller
lacks standing to sue over white chocolate products he did not
buy.

In December 2012, Beeler limited the suit to white chocolate
chips.  The judge noted that that four other Ghirardelli products
Miller targeted are all different from each other, both in
labeling and composition.

"This is not the type of case where similar products or similar
misrepresentations injured Miller in the same way as the unnamed
plaintiffs," Beeler wrote.

At oral argument, Miller's attorney argued that "the combination
of the 'Ghirardelli Chocolate' branding on the front of the label
on top of the characterization of the product means that -- under
FDA regulations and standards -- the harm is identical across
product lines."  Miller then filed an amended complaint, but
Ghirardelli complained that Miller was complaining about four
products he did not buy.

Earlier this month, Beeler again tossed all allegations not
pertaining to white chocolate chips.

"[The] identity of the commodity here under FDA regulations is
'white chocolate,' not 'chocolate,'" Beeler wrote.  "That in turn
means that a determination of standing is back to an examination
of the entire label, and the court previously found that - even
with the juxtaposition of 'Ghirardelli' to 'Chocolate' and the
resulting implication of a connection to chocolate - the five
products and the alleged misrepresentations were not sufficiently
similar."

Ghirardelli had also argued that Miller's claim that the chocolate
violated California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law does not
apply because federal regulation for white chocolate was not made
public until 2002.

Judge Beeler disagreed, however, noting that the California
Supreme Court applied FDA regulations from 2007 without
questioning the constitutionality of the Sherman Law.

Miller can also argue that the labeling was an unlawful trade
practice even though Ghirardelli said he should have pleaded
"nutritional inferiority."

"The allegations are more than merely labels or general
assertions," the ruling states.

"At the pleadings stage, and based on the case-specific record,
the court concludes that Ghirardelli has enough information to
answer the complaint."


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Collecting Illegal Court Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Harris
County takes millions of dollars in illegal court fees from
criminal defendants in "what amounts to little more than armed
extortion," two men claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiffs Onesimo "Trey" Perez and Jonathan Hawes say they
paid Harris County a total of $662 in court costs "despite the
fact that no fees were actually owed."  They say they paid the
money to avoid arrest and jail.

The county charged Perez $417 for his DUI conviction in July 2012,
and Hawes $215 for his marijuana possession conviction that month,
according to the complaint.

Given Harris County's status as Texas' most populated county, with
more than 4 million people, the illegal fees add up fast, the
class claims.

In March this year alone Harris County's criminal courts disposed
of 5,733 cases, according to county records.

"For years, defendant Harris County has, at the threat of
incarceration, extorted unlawful 'court costs' from those
convicted of misdemeanor and felony crimes, in clear violation of
Texas law," the complaint states.  "Harris County's practice has
taken millions of dollars from the class so represented by the
named plaintiffs without any justification, in violation of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"Under Texas law, a court cost assessed against a criminal
defendant 'is not payable by the person charged with the cost
until a written bill is produced or is ready to be produced,
containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who charged
the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the
cost'

"While the judgment against a defendant may include an instruction
to pay costs, Texas law is clear that an obligation of a convicted
person to pay court costs is established by statute, not by court
order.  This statute requires a bill of costs as a pre-requisite
to any assessment of court costs by a county clerk.

"Despite this, for years Harris County had a practice of failing
and/or refusing to file a bill of costs or any documentation to
support the charges levied against criminal defendants in every
conviction in the county.

"In fact, from April 2011 until late 2012, Harris County did not
even have a policy or mechanism for producing a bill of costs in a
criminal matter.  Rather than abide by Texas law, Harris County
chose to assess court costs against criminal defendants without
the prerequisite bill of costs.  Harris County was thereby
assessing costs that were not properly chargeable against criminal
defendants." (Citations to exhibits omitted.)

Harris County has no right to these fees but issues arrest
warrants for anyone who refuses to pay, the class claims.

"Thereby County used its threat of arrest by armed police to force
those plaintiffs to pay the unlawful costs. Harris County's
conduct of assessing costs without statutory authorization, and
then forcing payment of the costs by armed police, amounts to
little more than armed extortion," the complaint states.

The class seeks damages for unconstitutional taking, and an
injunction to stop Harris County from collecting illegal court
fees.

It is represented by David Mullin with Mullin Hoard & Brown of
Amarillo.

A court spokesman told Courthouse News the district attorney does
not comment on pending litigation.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Herbalife operated and
promoted an inherently fraudulent pyramid scheme, a class of its
distributors from the last four years claims.


HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Services in Alaska Tradelane Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to ocean shipping services in the
Alaska tradelane remains pending, according to Horizon Lines,
Inc.'s March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 23, 2012.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean
shipping business.  On February 23, 2011, the Company entered into
a plea agreement with the DOJ relating to the Puerto Rico
tradelane, and the Court has entered judgment accepting the
Company's plea agreement and has imposed a fine of $15.0 million
payable over five years without interest.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a class
action lawsuit relating to ocean shipping services in the Alaska
tradelane was filed and remains pending in the District of Alaska.
The Company and the class plaintiffs have agreed to stay the
Alaska litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the purported class action lawsuit in Alaska.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Horizon Lines, Inc. --
http://www.horizonlines.com/-- is a domestic ocean shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The Company owns or leases a fleet
of 20 U.S.-flag containerships and operates five port terminals
linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and
Puerto Rico.  The Company also provides integrated, reliable and
cost competitive logistics solutions.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc continues to defend a subsidiary from a
securities litigation captioned Jaffe v Household International
Inc., et al., according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 State Attorneys General
relating to real estate lending practices, Household International
Inc. (now HSBC Finance Corporation) and certain former officers
were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v
Household International Inc, et al No 2. C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed
August 19, 2002).  The complaint asserted claims under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Ultimately, a class was
certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of
Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and
October 11, 2002.  The claims alleged that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of
material fact relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations,
including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which
ultimately led to the 2002 State settlement agreement, and facts
relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement.

A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in
favour of the plaintiffs.  Following post-trial briefing, the
District Court ruled that various legal challenges to the verdict,
including as to loss causation and other matters, would not be
considered until after a second phase of the proceedings
addressing issues of reliance and the submission of claims by
class members had been completed.  The District Court ruled on
November 22, 2010, that claim forms should be mailed to class
members to ascertain which class members may have claims for
damages arising from reliance on the misleading statements found
by the jury.  The District Court also set out a method for
calculating damages for class members who filed claims.  As
previously reported, lead plaintiffs, in court filings in March
2010, estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between $2.4
billion to $3.2 billion to class members,' before pre-judgment
interest.

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

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

Despite the jury verdict and the various rulings of the District
Court, HSBC continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds
for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case, and intends
to appeal the District Court's final judgment, partial or
otherwise.  Upon final judgment, partial or otherwise, HSBC
Finance will be required to provide security for the judgment in
order to suspend its execution while the appeal is on-going by
either depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account or
posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including
any pre-judgment interest awarded).

Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual
determination of damages, including the outcome of any appeals,
there is a wide range of possible damages.  HSBC believes it has
meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both liability and
damages and will argue on appeal that damages should be nil or a
relatively insignificant amount.  If the Appeals Court rejects or
only partially accepts HSBC's arguments, the amount of damages,
based upon the claims submitted and the potential application of
pre-judgment interest may lie in a range from a relatively
insignificant amount to somewhere in the region of $2.7 billion
(or higher should plaintiffs successfully cross-appeal certain
issues related to the validity of specific claims).

HSBC Holdings plc -- http://www.hsbc.com/-- is the holding
company for the HSBC Group.  The Company provides a variety of
international banking and financial services, including retail and
corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody,
capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and
insurance.  The Group operates worldwide and is headquartered in
London, United Kingdom.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Consolidated LIBOR-Related Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit
in New York related to the setting of London interbank offered
rates, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

Various regulators and competition and enforcement authorities
around the world including in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, the EU,
Switzerland and Asia, are conducting investigations and reviews
related to certain past submissions made by panel banks and the
processes for making submissions in connection with the setting of
London interbank offered rates ('Libor'), European interbank
offered rates ('Euribor') and other benchmark interest and foreign
exchange rates.  Several of these panel banks have reached
settlements with various regulatory authorities.  As certain HSBC
entities are members of such panels, HSBC and/or its subsidiaries
have been the subject of regulatory demands for information and
are cooperating with those investigations and reviews.  Based on
the facts currently known, there is a high degree of uncertainty
as to the resolution of these regulatory investigations and
reviews, including the timing.  The potential impact and size of
any fines or penalties that could be imposed on HSBC cannot be
measured reliably.

In addition, HSBC and other panel banks have been named as
defendants in private lawsuits filed in the U.S. with respect to
the setting of Libor, including putative class action lawsuits
which have been consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The complaints in those
actions assert claims against HSBC and other panel banks under
various U.S. laws including U.S. antitrust laws, the U.S.
Commodities Exchange Act, and state law.  Based on the facts
currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to
predict the resolution of these private lawsuits, including the
timing and potential impact on HSBC.

HSBC Holdings plc -- http://www.hsbc.com/-- is the holding
company for the HSBC Group.  The Company provides a variety of
international banking and financial services, including retail and
corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody,
capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and
insurance.  The Group operates worldwide and is headquartered in
London, United Kingdom.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Defends Madoff-Related Suits and Investigations
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
from lawsuits and investigations related to the Ponzi scheme
perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff, according to the Company's March
12, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ('Madoff') was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ('Madoff Securities'), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser.  Since his appointment, the trustee has been
recovering assets and processing claims of Madoff Securities
customers.  Madoff subsequently pleaded guilty to various charges
and is serving a 150 year prison sentence.  He has acknowledged,
in essence, that while purporting to invest his customers' money
in securities and, upon request, return their profits and
principal, he in fact never invested in securities and used other
customers' money to fulfill requests for the return of profits and
principal.  The relevant U.S. authorities are continuing their
investigations into his fraud, and have brought charges against
others, including certain former employees and the former auditor
of Madoff Securities.

Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial, administration
and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the
U.S. whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities.  Based on
information provided by Madoff Securities, as at November 30,
2008, the purported aggregate value of these funds was $8.4
billion, an amount that includes fictitious profits reported by
Madoff.  Based on information available to HSBC to date, HSBC
estimates that the funds' actual transfers to Madoff Securities
minus their actual withdrawals from Madoff Securities during the
time that HSBC serviced the funds totalled approximately $4
billion.  The Plaintiffs (including funds, fund investors, and the
Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related
proceedings against numerous defendants in a multitude of
jurisdictions.  Various HSBC companies have been named as
defendants in lawsuits in the U.S., Ireland, Luxembourg and other
jurisdictions.  Certain lawsuits (which included four U.S.
putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or
should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to
the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the U.S. District Court Judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement, pursuant to which, subject
to various conditions, the HSBC defendants had agreed to pay from
$52.5 million up to a maximum of $62.5 million.  In December 2011,
the court lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining
claims against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider
preliminary approval of the settlement.  In light of the court's
decisions, HSBC terminated the settlement agreement.  The Thema
plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate.  The Plaintiffs in
all three actions have filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Briefing in that appeal was
completed in September 2012; oral argument is expected in early
2013.

In November and December 2012, HSBC settled two of the individual
claims commenced by investors in Thema International Fund plc
against HSBC in the Irish High Court.

In December 2010, the Madoff Securities trustee commenced lawsuits
against various HSBC companies in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and in
the English High Court.  The U.S. action (which also names certain
funds, investment managers, and other entities and individuals)
sought $9 billion in damages and additional recoveries from HSBC
and the various co-defendants.  It sought damages against HSBC for
allegedly aiding and abetting Madoff's fraud and breach of
fiduciary duty.  In July 2011, after withdrawing the case from the
Bankruptcy Court in order to decide certain threshold issues, the
U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the trustee's various common
law claims on the grounds that the trustee lacks standing to
assert them.  In December 2011, the trustee filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Briefing in that appeal was completed in April 2012, and oral
argument was held in November 2012.  A decision is expected in
2013.

The District Court returned the remaining claims to the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.  Those claims seek,
pursuant to U.S. bankruptcy law, recovery of unspecified amounts
received by HSBC from funds invested with Madoff, including
amounts that HSBC received when it redeemed units HSBC held in the
various funds.  HSBC acquired those fund units in connection with
financing transactions HSBC had entered into with various clients.
The trustee's U.S. bankruptcy law claims also seek recovery of
fees earned by HSBC for providing custodial, administration and
similar services to the funds.  Between September 2011 and April
2012, the HSBC defendants and certain other defendants moved again
to withdraw the case from the Bankruptcy Court.  The District
Court granted those withdrawal motions as to certain issues, and
briefing and oral arguments on the merits of the withdrawn issues
are now complete.  The District Court has issued rulings on two of
the withdrawn issues, but decisions with respect to all other
issues are still pending and are expected in early 2013.

The trustee's English action seeks recovery of unspecified
transfers of money from Madoff Securities to or through HSBC, on
the grounds that the HSBC defendants actually or constructively
knew of Madoff's fraud.  HSBC has not been served with the
trustee's English action.

Between October 2009 and April 2012, Fairfield Sentry Limited,
Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited
('Fairfield'), funds whose assets were directly or indirectly
invested with Madoff Securities, commenced multiple lawsuits in
the British Virgin Islands ('BVI') and the U.S. against numerous
fund shareholders, including various HSBC companies that acted as
nominees for clients of HSBC's private banking business and other
clients who invested in the Fairfield funds.  The Fairfield
actions seek restitution of amounts paid to the defendants in
connection with share redemptions, on the ground that such
payments were made by mistake, based on inflated values resulting
from Madoff's fraud, and some actions also seek recovery of the
share redemptions under BVI insolvency law.  The actions in the
U.S. are currently stayed in the Bankruptcy Court pending
developments in related appellate litigation in the BVI.

There are many factors which may affect the range of possible
outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of the various
Madoff-related proceedings, including but not limited to the
circumstances of the fraud, the multiple jurisdictions in which
the proceedings have been brought and the number of different
plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings.  For these reasons,
among others, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to
estimate reliably the aggregate liabilities, or ranges of
liabilities, that might arise as a result of all such claims but
they could be significant.  In any event, HSBC considers that it
has good defences to these claims and will continue to defend them
vigorously.

HSBC Holdings plc -- http://www.hsbc.com/-- is the holding
company for the HSBC Group.  The Company provides a variety of
international banking and financial services, including retail and
corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody,
capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and
insurance.  The Group operates worldwide and is headquartered in
London, United Kingdom.


HRB TAX: Faces Class Action Over Discrimination Against Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that HRB Tax Group (H&R Block)
discriminates against the blind in its online tax preparation, the
National Federation of the Blind claims in a federal class action.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Individual Defendants in "Timm" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The individual defendants in the class action lawsuit styled Timm,
v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., were dismissed
in January 2013, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed entitled
Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., in the Circuit
Court of Baltimore City alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.  The action seeks the payment of two
quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the
unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative
dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two
directors by the Preferred B and C holders.  The action also
originally sought punitive damages and legal expenses.

On January 28, 2013, the court dismissed all individual director
and officer defendants from the case and further dismissed the
Second, Third and Fifth causes of action relating to an improper
"vote buying" scheme, breach of fiduciary duty and punitive
damages.  The remaining causes of action against the Company
allege the Preferred B holders did not approve amendments to its
Articles Supplementary and the holders thereof seek to recover two
quarters of dividends and to elect two members to the Board of
Directors of the Company.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/--
is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California.
The Company is an established independent residential mortgage
lender.  The Company originates, sells and services residential
mortgage loans through its subsidiaries.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Marentes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of their class action lawsuit
titled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California entitled Marentes v.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan
modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and pre-
judgment interest.  On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant
and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., without prejudice.  On December 27, 2012, the
court granted Impac Funding Corporation's motion to dismiss and on
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/--
is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California.
The Company is an established independent residential mortgage
lender.  The Company originates, sells and services residential
mortgage loans through its subsidiaries.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement in "Gilmor" Suit Approved in March
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in
March 2013 approved Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.'s settlement of
a class action lawsuit filed by Gilmor, et al., according to the
Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On June 27, 2000, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri entitled
Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit Corp., et. al., alleging the
originator of various second mortgage loans in Missouri and other
assignees of the loans charged fees and costs in violation of
Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act.  The plaintiffs were seeking
on behalf of themselves and the members of the class, among other
things, disgorgement or restitution of all improperly collected
charges, the right to rescind all affected loan transactions, the
right to offset any finance charges, closing costs, points or
other loan fees paid against the principal amounts due on the
loans if rescinded, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  In December 2012, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement whereby the Company agreed to pay the
plaintiffs the sum of $3.0 million and on March 6, 2013, the
settlement was approved by the court.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/
-- is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California.
The Company is an established independent residential mortgage
lender.  The Company originates, sells and services residential
mortgage loans through its subsidiaries.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging that Interline Brands, Inc.,
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 remains
pending, according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 28, 2012.

On May 10, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in an action
filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County,
Illinois, which was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint alleges that the Company sent thousands of unsolicited
fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA").  At the time of filing the
complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to
certify a class of plaintiffs comprised of businesses who
allegedly received unsolicited fax advertisements from the
Company.  Other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad
range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own
unique set of facts and circumstances.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising
from this matter.

The Company says it is vigorously contesting class action
certification and liability, and will continue to evaluate its
defenses based upon its internal review, advice from external
legal counsel and investigation of prior events, new information,
and future circumstances.

Interline Brands, Inc. -- http://www.interlinebrands.com/-- is a
national distributor and direct marketer of broad-line
maintenance, repair and operations products.  The Company sells
plumbing, electrical, hardware, security, heating, ventilation and
air conditioning, janitorial and sanitation supplies and other MRO
products.  The Company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


MANAGED HEALTH: MFLC Overtime Pay Action Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston on April 25 granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a conditional Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action in the overtime pay suit against
their employers MHN, Government Services, Inc. and Managed Health
Network, Inc.

Plaintiffs, known as Military Family Life Consultants, provide
counseling to military service members and their families at U.S.
military installations across the nation and abroad. The class
action complaint charges that MHN misclassified MFLCs as
independent contractors, and that they should be classified as
employees and are entitled to overtime compensation under the
federal FLSA and similar state laws.

In granting collective action certification, Judge Illston stated:

Plaintiffs and the other [MFLCs] all share the same job title and
similar duties.  MHN has standard policies, set forth in the MFLC
Provider Manual and MFLC Program Summary, that apply to all MFL
Consultants.  They are also all subject to the same employment
agreement with MHN, the Provider Services Task Order Agreement.
MHM classifies all [MFLCs] as exempt employees, and therefore does
not pay them overtime hours.  Additionally, plaintiffs have made a
showing that the [MFLCs] have similar duties, regardless of the
type or location of assignment they are given."  (Internal
citations omitted.)

"Thousands of MFLCs work tirelessly to help American service
members, earning significant revenues for government-contractor
MHN each year," stated Lieff Cabraser lawyer Jahan C. Sagafi.  "We
are pleased that the Court has allowed them to pursue their rights
to proper compensation together in one action, rather than in
thousands of individual lawsuits that would waste judicial
resources and deter MFLCs from recovering money we believe is owed
to them.  We look forward to providing information about the
lawsuit to all MFLCs nationwide, to allow them to opt in to
protect their rights."

The case is, THOMAS ZABOROWSKI, et. al., on behalf of themselves
and a putative class, Plaintiffs, v. MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.
and MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Defendants, No. C 12-05109 (N.D.
Cal.).

Pursuant to the Court order, Judge Illston directed the parties to
meet and confer regarding the notice and notice procedures, and
jointly file a proposed notice by no later than May 3, 2013.
Additionally, the Court ordered the defendants to produce to
plaintiffs in Microsoft Excel or comparable format the names, all
known addresses, all known e-mail addresses, and all known
telephone numbers of all known MFLCs, by no later than May 17,
2013.

Lieff Cabraser may be reached at:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Stephen H. Cassidy, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Tel: 415-956-1000
          Fax: 415-956-1008
          E-mail: jsagafi@lchb.com
                  scassidy@lchb.com


NVIDIA CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities
litigation against NVIDIA Corporation remains pending, according
to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 27,
2013.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the Company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that the Company would take a
charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and
expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of the Company's previous generation media and
communications processor, or MCP, and graphics processing unit, or
GPU, products and that the Company was revising financial guidance
for its second quarter of fiscal year 2009.  The Actions purport
to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act.

On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).  The Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008.  On
February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of
the co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  On February 19, 2009, the co-
Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the
District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of
Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware
granted the stay.  On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals
issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of
one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for
further proceedings.  On December 8, 2009, the District Court
appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead
counsel.

On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities
Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The
consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before
Judge Seeborg.  On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the
Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  On December 2,
2010, the co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  The Company moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011.  Following oral argument,
on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  The
appeal has been fully briefed, but the Ninth Circuit has not yet
set a hearing date.

NVIDIA Corporation -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is a visual
computing company, connecting people through the powerful medium
of computer graphics.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in NVIDIA GPU Litigation Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of NVIDIA Corporation's previous generation
products used in notebook configurations.  On
February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU
Litigation."  On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed
motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing
certain related issues.  On April 10, 2009, the District Court
appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel.  On May 6, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging
claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil
Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of
Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of
Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment,
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability
and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

After extensive motion practice and litigation, plaintiffs on
December 14, 2009, filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
seeking unspecified damages and asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the
District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached
a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The
settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals,
including final approval by the court.  As a result of the
settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and
offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge
of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense
during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.  In addition, a
portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges the Company
recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging
set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to
estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the
implementation of these settlements.

On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement and Release.  On September 15, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement and providing for notice to the potential class
members.  The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20,
2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and
entered Final Judgment over several objections.  In January 2011,
several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
appeal is currently pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 12, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 27, 2013.

NVIDIA Corporation -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is a visual
computing company, connecting people through the powerful medium
of computer graphics.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


NVIDIA CORP: "Granfield" Suit in Massachusetts Now Over
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. is now
over according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended January 27, 2013.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v.
NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting
claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak
die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers
alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the
California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3,
2011, the action was transferred to the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the
parties.  On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.  On March 19, 2012,
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law
violations, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violations of the
Massachusetts consumer protection statutes.  NVIDIA filed a motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012.

On July 12, 2012, the District Court dismissed six of the seven
asserted causes of action with prejudice, allowing only one cause
of action for violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection
statute to continue, and instructed the Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint consistent with its Order.  On August 15, 2012,
the Plaintiff indicated that he would not be filing an amended
complaint.  The Granfield case is now over.

NVIDIA Corporation -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is a visual
computing company, connecting people through the powerful medium
of computer graphics.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


OHIO: Job and Family Services Dept. Sued for Seizing Money
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Ohio
illegally seizes money from tort awards to people who received
Medicaid benefits, two people claim in a state class action.

Lead plaintiffs Michael A. Pivonka and Lisa Rijos sued Michael B.
Colbert, the director of Ohio's Department of Job and Family
Services, and Attorney General Mike DeWine, in the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas.  They claim Ohio's "Subrogation Statute" is
unconstitutional.

The class includes an estimated 20,000 people "who were forced to
forfeit a portion of their tort recovery to defendant pursuant to
a demand by defendant of a right of subrogation pursuant to
Section 5101.58 of the Ohio Revised Code (the 'Subrogation
Statute')."

The law "purports to give defendant a right of recovery against
monies recovered from a third party for the cost of medical
assistance paid on behalf of a public assistance recipient or
participant," the complaint states.  It continues: "Under O.R.C.
5101.58, even if a judgment or award specifically excludes the
cost of medical assistance paid by defendant, the statute still
grants defendant this right to recovery.

"O.R.C. 5101.58 automatically entitles defendant to one-half of
the total judgment, award, settlement or compromise, after
deduction of fees, costs, and other case related expenses are
deducted, without regard to the amount the victim received for
medical reimbursement.

"O.R.C. 5101.58 provides no mechanism for the recipient or
participant to challenge the tort recovery amount attributable to
defendant's medical assistance.

"O.R.C. 5101.58 violates the federal Medicaid statutes anti-lien
provision, 42 U.S.C. 1396 (p)(a)(1), and is invalid under the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. VI,
Cl. 2."

Pivonka says the state grabbed more than $7,000 from his
settlement for a car accident.  Rijos claims Ohio took more than
$700 from her jury award.  They seek class certification,
declaratory judgment and they want their money back.

They are represented by Christian Patno, with McCarthy, Lebit,
Crystal and Liffman, in Cleveland.


OMNIVISION TECH: Judge Won't Disturb Misrepresentation Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge refused to disturb misrepresentation claims against
a company that lost an exclusive contract related to the Apple
iPhone.

At this stage of the consolidated class action, the complaint
against OmniVision Technologies sufficiently accuses CFO Officer
Anson Chan of having made two actionable misstatements that were
false and for which Chan knew were false, the court found.

Shareholders claim that the truth about OmniVision's contract with
Apple caused its stock to drop from $34.67 to $14.26 per share.

OmniVision designs image sensors that are used in mobile phones
with camera features, including in Apple's 2009 iPhone 3GS and
2010 iPhone 4.  Although Apple prohibited suppliers from revealing
that Apple was their customer, OmniVision used buzz phrases and
code words indicating that it was the exclusive image sensor
provider for the iPhone, according to U.S. District Judge Ronald
Whyte's summary of the complaint.

"During the class Period, defendants continued to make positive
statements about such topics as OmniVision's competitive lead, its
new BSI-2 technology, market share, design wins, and its
relationship with 'Tier 1' customers," Whyte wrote.  "Lead
plaintiffs contend these statements led the market to believe that
OmniVision remained Apple's exclusive image sensor supplier when
in fact Sony, not OmniVision, had been chosen by Apple to be the
dominant supplier of 8 MPx camera image sensors for the next
generation 2011 iPhone (ultimately called the iPhone 4S)."

The shareholders claim that OmniVision lacked a reasonable basis
to make positive statements about the company and its prospects
because the company had lost its exclusive contract with Apple.
Delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line
meanwhile allegedly threatened its financial prospects.

OmniVision argued that none of the company's direct statements
"ever made reference to Apple or the iPhone 4S," according to the
ruling.

In addition to distancing itself from statements made by analysts,
the company said its forward-looking statements are protected by
the safe harbor.

Whyte found that the majority of the alleged false or misleading
statements cited in the complaint were too vague or forward-
looking to actually be false or misleading.  Two specific
statements do, however, appear "actually misleading" at this
stage, and warrant further analysis, according to the ruling.

Whyte attributed the two possibly actionable statements to CFO
Anson Chan.

"On September 1, 2011, an analyst spoke with Chan and reported
that Chan 'acknowledges that Sony is a credible competitor at
8MPx," Whyte wrote.  "That said, he believes OVTI [Omnivision
Technologies Inc.] has only gone head-to-head with Sony once (so
far) and claims that OVTI won the resulting design opportunity for
a 2012 product.  "Similarly, Chan held a 'Management Access Call'
on September 20, 2011 after which analysts reported 'Management
believes OEM [original equipment manufacturer] relationships
remain unchanged; not dependent upon one customer.  OVTI noted
that in terms of its market share, the company believes its OEM
relationships remain unchanged."

With the official release of the iPhone 4S on Oct. 14, 2011,
industry experts dismantled the products and concluded that the
new phone contained an image sensor made by Sony rather than
OmniVision.

"For determining whether the alleged statements were false or
misleading when made, the critical issue is when Apple decided to
use Sony components or, stated somewhat differently, when
OmniVision lost all reasonable chance of having its image sensors
included in the iPhone 4s," Whyte wrote (emphasis in original).

Whyte said that "insider trading allegations support an inference
that OmniVision was experiencing problems in June 2011."

Those indications are said to account for why Apple ultimately
"did not select OmniVision's image sensor," according to the
ruling.

"The court finds that there are sufficient factual allegations to
make it plausible that Chan's statements in September 2011 were
false when made," Whyte wrote.

The complaint also sufficiently alleged that Chan made the two
actionable misstatements with scienter, which involves intent to
deceive or an extreme departure from the standard of ordinary
care.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are Oakland County Employees
Retirement System, Laborers' District Council Contractors' Pension
Fund of Ohio, and Woburn Retirement System.  The class action was
brought on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded common
stock and securities of OmniVision between Aug. 27. 2010, and
Nov. 6, 2011.

Named as individual defendants are: former CEO, president and
board chairman Shawn Hong; former CFO and vice president of
finance Anson Chan; and former vice president of worldwide sales
Aurelio "Ray" Cisneros.


QWEST COMMS: Awaits OK of Settlement in Rights-of-Way Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. is awaiting preliminary
approval of its settlements of class action lawsuits related to
the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way in
four states -- Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas,
according to the Company's March 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)  For the most
part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to install its
fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.  The complaints
allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that
did not include the right to permit the Company to install its
cable in the right-of-way without the Plaintiffs' consent.  Most
of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf
of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs' respective states,
although one action pending before the Illinois Court of Appeals
purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.  In
general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and
unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.  After previous
attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single
court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court
approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis.  To date, the
parties have received final approval of such settlements in 22
states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin), have received
preliminary approval of the settlements in eight states
(California, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina and Utah), and have not yet received either preliminary
or final approval in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, New
Mexico and Texas).

The Company says it has accrued an amount that it believes is
probable for these matters; however, the amount is not material to
the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, Qwest Communications
International Inc. -- http://www.centurylink.com/-- is an
integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing
an array of communications services to the Company's residential,
business, governmental and wholesale customers.  The Company's
communications services include local and long-distance, network
access, private line, broadband, data, managed hosting, wireless
and video services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc.


REED AND BARTON: Recalls 4,000 Baby Gingham Bunny Forks & Spoons
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Reed and Barton Corp., of Taunton, Massachusetts; and
manufacturer, Winkuan Metals Technology Co. Ltd., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 Gingham Bunny forks
and spoons for babies.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pink coloring on the bunny's ears can come off, posing choking
and ingestion hazards to babies.

Reed and Barton has received one report of the pink coloring on
the bunny's ears coming off the flatware.  No injuries were
reported.

This recall involves infant flatware from the Gingham Bunny
Flatware Collection, sold three ways; as just the infant feeding
spoon, in a fork and spoon set, and in a three-piece set including
the infant feeding spoon with a bowl and bib.  The flatware is
silver-colored, nickel-plated and has a bunny with pink coloring
on its ears at the end of the handle.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/ZSwHOT

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Reed
and Barton factory stores and various gift shops nationwide and
online at www.reedandbarton.com from September 2012 through
January 2013 for between $15 and $40.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled flatware away from
infants and contact Reed and Barton for a full refund or free
replacement flatware.  Reed and Barton Corp. may be reached at
(800) 343-1383 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday or online at http://www.reedandbarton.com/and
click on Recall Information in the gray box at the bottom of the
page.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Suit for Giving Late Notice of Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims the St. Louis-based grocery chain Schnuck Markets waited
for 15 days to warn customers that their financial information had
been jeopardized by hackers.

Lead plaintiff Michael Bannister sued Schnuck Markets in City
Court.

"On or about March 15, 2013, Schnucks detected that its computer
systems had been compromised by one or more individuals, which
allowed these individuals to steal plaintiff's and class members
PII [personal identifying information] -- including their credit
card information, debit card information, and debit card PIN
numbers - when plaintiff and class members used their credit and
debit cards to make purchases from Schnucks (the 'data breach'),"
the complaint states.

"Schnucks' security failures enabled hackers to steal plaintiff's
and class members' PII from within Schnucks' computer systems and
subsequently make unauthorized purchases on customers' credit
cards and otherwise put plaintiff's and class members; financial
information at serious and ongoing risk.  The hackers continue to
use the information they obtained as a result of Schnucks'
inadequate security to exploit and injure plaintiff and class
members."

Bannister claims Schnucks failed to comply with computer security
industry standards.  And, he says, "Despite first learning of the
data breach on or about March 15, 2013, Schnucks did not inform
the public of the data breach until March 30, 2013 -- two weeks
later -- via the issuance of a press release."

Bannister claims customers were not given individual notice of the
breach; many found out about it by finding discrepancies on their
bank statements.  He claims that Schnucks failed to admit that its
own actions contributed to the breach.

"Rather than take responsibility for its security failures that
resulted in the data breach, Schnucks has placed the burden on
aggrieved customers like plaintiff and the other members of the
class, either to self-monitor their accounts and credit reports
for years to come, or to spend time and money on fraud alerts or
credit-report security freezes," the complaint states.

"At no time has Schnucks offered credit monitoring or identity
theft protection assistance to plaintiff or to other members of
the class, nor has Schnucks taken any affirmative steps to make
plaintiff and class members whole for the damages arising out of
Schnucks' conduct."

The class consists of all Missourians who used their credit or
debit card at Schnucks while its computer system was compromised.

Bannister seeks actual and punitive damages for breach of implied
contract, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts.  He
also wants Schnucks ordered to send customers notice of the data
breach and ordered to post a notice of the breach in all of its
stores.

He is represented by Geoffrey Meyerkord with Meyerkord &
Meyerkord.


SHIRE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Sham Patent Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal antitrust class
action claims Shire LLC used sham patent litigation and other
underhanded means to delay introduction of generic Adderall to the
market.


SIX FLAGS: Faces Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Six Flags Entertainment
stiffed ride operators and mechanics for overtime, a class action
claims in Superior Court.


STERLING BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sterling Bancorp is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Provident New York
Bancorp, in a 1:1.2625 stock swap valued at $344 million,
shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court.


SVTC TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Initial Approval of Hoa Tran Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila took off the calendar the initial
Case Management Conference that was scheduled for April 26, 2013,
in the lawsuit captioned HOA TRAN, Plaintiff, v. SVTC
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SVTC SOLAR, INC.; SVTC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV-04970-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Prior to the Court's ruling, the parties to the case notified the
Court that they have reached a proposed class action settlement;
asked that the April 26 initial Case Management Conference be
taken off the calendar; and that the Plaintiff will file a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement no later than May 3,
2013.

As the parties previously informed the Court on March 7, 2013,
SVTC Technologies has assigned all of its assets to a liquidation
company for the benefit of its creditors; SVTC Solar, Inc. has
sold its assets to the State University of New York; and their
parent company, SVTC Technologies, Inc. similarly intends to
liquidate.  Despite the dissolution of the Defendants, the parties
have negotiated a proposed settlement that would resolve the
litigation in its entirety and provide monetary relief for class
members.  At the time of the last update to the Court, the parties
were working through some logistical issues to ascertain the class
and obtain payroll data to facilitate distributing the settlement.
The parties have now completed that process and are documenting
the settlement.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to file his motion for
preliminary approval of the parties' proposed class action
settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by
May 3, 2013.  The Plaintiff is directed to contact the Courtroom
Deputy to reserve the hearing date prior to filing the motion for
preliminary approval.

Matthew B. George, Esq. -- mbg@girardgibbs.com -- Eric H. Gibbs,
Esq. -- ehg@girardgibbs.com -- Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. --
smg@girardgibbs.com -- at GIRARD GIBBS LLP, in San Francisco, CA,
serve as counsel for Individual and Representative Attorneys for
Plaintiff Hoa Tran.

Steven M. Schneider, Esq. -- sms@msk.com -- Gerald T. Hathaway,
Esq. -- gth@msk.com -- at MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP serve as
attorneys for Defendants SVTC Technologies, Inc., SVTC Solar,
Inc., SVTC Technologies, LLC.

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


TARGET CORP: Recalls 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis Lasagna Pans
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wilton Industries, Inc., of Woodridge, Illinois, and Target
Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary
recall of about 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis Ceramic 9 x 13 Inch
Lasagna Pans.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The pan can break causing sharp edges and posing a laceration
hazard.

Target has received 39 reports of the pan or its handles breaking
or cracking during normal use.  Cuts and lacerations were reported
in six of those incidents.

The recall involves Giada De Laurentiis-branded ceramic lasagna
pans.  The cream-colored pans are 9 by 13 inches in size and they
were sold individually and as part of a six-piece set.  The bottom
of the pan is stamped "Giada de Laurentiis for Target."  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/RkViZx

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide and on Target.com from
January 2009 through October 2012 for about $22 for individual
pans and between $35 and $50 for the six-piece sets.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lasagna pans
and return them to any Target store for a full refund.  Consumers
who purchased the pan as part of the six-piece set should return
the lasagna pan only.  Target guest relations may be reached at
(800) 440-0680 from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or online at http://www.target.com/click on
Product Recalls at the bottom of the page and then select Home &
Kitchen.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Gates' Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted a motion for summary
judgment, and dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, a second
amended complaint in the lawsuit styled as MARIANNE GATES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; LIFE, AD&D,
DISABILITY & MEDICAL PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.;
UNITED HEALTHCARE CHOICE PLUS COPAY PLAN FOR ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN
L.P. ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P. RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; and ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P. UNITED
HEALTHCARE INDEMNITY PLAN, Defendants, No. 11 Civ. 3487 (KBF),
(S.D.N.Y.).

This putative class action brought by Marianne Gates in May 2011
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Savings Act
related to retiree health benefits provided by her former
employer, Alliance Bernstein L.P.  By order dated July 16, 2012,
the Court dismissed a number of plaintiffs claims but allowed
others to proceed.

Ms. Gates submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint and
requested leave to amend. The Defendants opposed that application
on the basis that the amendments were futile and the claims
remained subject to dismissal. However, in the second round of
briefing on the complaint, the Defendants submitted a declaration
from Melody L. Smith, a Manager in the Operations Management
section of the ERISA plan's administrator, United Healthcare
Insurance Company. The Smith declaration was initially submitted
solely in connection with the Defendants' argument for dismissal
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

The Smith declaration sets forth UHIC's methodology and rationale
for reimbursements for individuals whose primary and secondary
healthcare plans share similar characteristics with those of the
Plaintiff.  In her response papers, Ms. Gates noted the overlap
between the Defendants' 12(b)(1) argument that the Plaintiff
lacked injury and therefore standing, and their 12(b)(6) argument
that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim because UHIC's
interpretation of the plan was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
According to Ms. Gates, the overlap in arguments made it
inappropriate for the Court to rely on the Smith declaration to
the extent it would be used to resolve the 12(b)(6) argument.

On January 11, 2013, the Court held oral argument on the
Defendants' motion opposing Plaintiffs' application to amend her
complaint.  During the course of the argument, the Court agreed
that there was overlap between the Defendants' 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) arguments.  In fact, a judicial determination that the
Plaintiff had not been injured would in fact necessarily accept
UHIC's plan interpretation, and vice versa.

In the context of any ordinary 12(b)(1) argument, the Court noted
that it could consider materials outside of the record. However,
the Court also noted that it could not review the declaration to
evaluate the Plaintiffs' allegation that UHIC acted outside its
discretion in awarding the Plaintiff benefits on a Rule 12(b)(6)
plausibility pleading standard.

To resolve the issue, the Court suggested -- and the parties
consented to -- conversion of the motion to one for summary
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.  Procedurally, the Court will
therefore deem the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to be
filed and will consider the Defendants' arguments as made in
support of summary judgment.  The Court suggested -- and the
parties agreed -- that in connection with the conversion, the
Plaintiff should be provided an additional opportunity to seek the
limited additional discovery she deemed necessary to oppose the
motion. Such discovery was conducted. The parties made additional
letter submissions in connection with the motion on February 18,
2013.

Accordingly, before the Court was the Defendants' (converted)
motion for summary judgment.

On April 19, Judge Forrest granted the motion saying the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the Plaintiffs' lack of
standing and, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs' Count I fails
to allege plausible facts suggesting that she has been harmed.  As
the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are dependent upon a finding of
harm in Count I, the Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint
in its entirety.

A copy of the District Court's April 19, 2013 Opinion & Order
is available at http://is.gd/Hnhp9Efrom Leagle.com.


YAMASHITA RUBBER: Faces Suit Over Rubber Market Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Auto dealers claim Yamashita
Rubber Co., Yusa Corp., Tokai Rubber Industries, DTR Industries,
et al. conspired to control the market in rubber, anti-vibration
parts, in a federal antitrust class action.


ZST DIGITAL: Faces Class Action for Withholding Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ZST Digital stock fell from
$4.36 to $2.68 in one day when it was revealed that the company
was keeping "two sets of materially divergent financial records,"
a derivative class action claims in Federal Court.


                             *********

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  * * *