CAR_Public/130502.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 86

                             Headlines


ARC DOCUMENT: Parties in Suit vs. Units Engaged in Discovery
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Countrywide MBS Class Action for $500MM
BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Over Mortgage Scheme Survives Dismissal Bid
BANK OF NEW YORK: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Tax Liens
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal in Consolidated ADS-Related Suit Pending

BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Various LIBOR-Related Suits
BASS PRO: Sued in California Over Recorded Customer Calls
BERNARD MADOFF: Judge Okays $219-Mil. Class Action Settlement
BODY CENTRAL: Defends "Mogensen" Securities Suit in Florida
BOEING CO: Foley & Lardner Discusses Class Action Ruling

CASH TO GO: Court Dismisses ADA Class Action in Florida
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Markets Suits
DIGNITY HEALTH: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Pension Plan
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert. in SpEd Services Suit Reversed
DOW CHEMICAL: Court Hears Arguments in Pesticide Class Action

ELECTRONIC ARTS: May 15 Deadline Set for Class Action Claims
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
EYRE PENINSULA: Landowners' Class Action Set for Trial This Year
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Plaintiffs Appealed "McGrogan" Suit Dismissal
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Supreme Court Won't Review Subrogation Suit

H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Tax Return Delays
HOMESERVICES LENDING: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Wage Suit
INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE: Borrowers Mull Class Action
INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit in N.Y.
INUVO INC: Renewed Bid for Summary Judgment Remains Pending

INVENTURE FOODS: Added as Defendant in "Anderson" Suit vs. Jamba
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Litigation Lenders Eye Hip Implant Plaintiffs
KADANT INC: Accrued $379,000 for Claims & Costs in Suit vs. Unit
MARCHESE HOSPITAL: 300+ People Join Chemo Drug Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Riddell Ruling May Raise Questions on Class Action

NEW YORK: NYPD Directed to Produce 2 Cops in Stop-and-Frisk Trial
NY STOCK EXCHANGE: May 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SAC CAPITAL: Insider Trading Settlement Gets Conditional Court OK
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Class Cert. Ruling in "Anwar" Suit
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Millennium Actions v. Unit

STANDARD & POOR'S: Facing Class Suit in Aussie Over Ratings
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Camry Sudden Acceleration
UNITED STATES: Physicians File Class Action Over TRICARE Program
VISA INC: Class Action Lawyers Seek $720 Million in Fees
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Judge Rejects Plaintiff's Class Claims

ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Has Responded to Amended "Marcano" Complaint

* Judge Allows Customer Review Class Action v. Dentist to Proceed
* Lexjus Sinacta Discusses Ruling in Italian Suit v. Tour Operator
* Online Travel Cos. Face $55-Mil. Judgment in Class Action
* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record Low, PwC Reveals


                             *********


ARC DOCUMENT: Parties in Suit vs. Units Engaged in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action lawsuit against subsidiaries of ARC
Document Solutions, Inc., are currently engaged in pre-
certification class discovery process, according to the Company's
March 13, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 21, 2010, the plaintiff, a former employee, filed a
class action civil complaint against defendants American
Reprographics Company, LLC and American Reprographics Company in
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.  The class
action complaint seeks to represent all current and former non-
exempt hourly employees who worked for the Defendants in
California since October 21, 2006.  The civil complaint alleges
causes of action for failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 as
well as several derivative claims.  The civil complaint seeks
recovery of wages, restitution, penalties, interest, equitable
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties are currently
engaged in pre-certification class discovery process.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range
of possible loss, if any, at this time, and accordingly has not
accrued for any potential liability in its Consolidated Financial
Statements in connection with this matter.

ARC Document Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.e-arc.com/-- a
Delaware corporation, provides specialized document solutions to
businesses of all types, with an emphasis on the non-residential
segment of the architecture, engineering and construction
industry.  The Company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Countrywide MBS Class Action for $500MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that the mortgage lender Countrywide
Financial, absorbed by Bank of America in 2008, has agreed to pay
$500 million to resolve class claims that it misled mortgage-
backed securities investors.  The record deal brings an end to a
long legal battle that didn't unfold quite as plaintiffs lawyers
had hoped.


BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Over Mortgage Scheme Survives Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that a
federal judge has refused to dismiss a class action suit against
Bank of America, its home loan and reinsurance subsidiaries and a
number of private mortgage insurers, instead directing the parties
to develop a record on the issue of whether the statute of
limitations should be equitably tolled based on the plaintiffs'
claims that the defendants allegedly engaged in a scheme to use
mortgage insurance premiums to fund illegal kickbacks to lenders.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Tax Liens
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on April 15 threw out two suits, one a proposed
class action alleging the City of New York, The Bank of New York
Mellon and others violated the U.S. Constitution with the method
the city used to assert tax liens and foreclose on properties.

Judge John Gleeson dismissed a pair of lawsuits alleging the
city's tax lien foreclosure process on a Staten Island property
violated the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th amendments to the
Constitution.


BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal in Consolidated ADS-Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the consolidated securities lawsuit relating to
American Depositary Shares remain pending, according to Barclays
PLC's March 13, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays PLC and various current and former
members of Barclays PLC's Board of Directors have been named as
defendants in five proposed securities class actions (which have
been consolidated) pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the Court).  The consolidated
amended complaint, dated February 12, 2010, alleges that the
registration statements relating to American Depositary Shares
representing Preferred Stock, Series 2, 3, 4 and 5 (the ADS)
offered by Barclays Bank PLC at various times between 2006 and
2008 contained misstatements and omissions concerning (amongst
other things) Barclays portfolio of mortgage-related (including
U.S. subprime-related) securities, Barclays exposure to mortgage
and credit market risk and Barclays financial condition.  The
consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  On January 5,
2011, the Court issued an Order and, on January 7, 2011, Judgment
was entered, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and closing the case.  On February 4,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider
in part its dismissal order.  On May 31, 2011, the Court denied in
full the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  The plaintiffs
have appealed both decisions (the grant of the defendants' motion
to dismiss and the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration) to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  Oral argument was held on October 18, 2012.

Barclays considers that these ADS-related claims against it are
without merit and is defending them vigorously.  It is not
practicable to estimate Barclays possible loss in relation to
these claims or any effect that they might have upon operating
results in any particular financial period.

                         About Barclays

Barclays PLC -- http://www.barclays.com/-- is a global financial
services provider engaged in personal banking, credit cards,
corporate and investment banking, and wealth and investment
management with an extensive international presence in Europe, the
Americas, Africa and Asia.  With over 300 years of history and
expertise in banking, Barclays operates in over 50 countries and
employs approximately 140,000 people.  London, England-based
Barclays moves, lends, invests and protects money for customers
and clients worldwide.


BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Various LIBOR-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC continues to defend itself against various lawsuits
relating to the London Interbank Offered Rate, according to the
Company's March 13, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Barclays and other banks have been named as defendants in class
action and non-class action lawsuits pending in United States
Federal Courts in connection with their roles as contributor panel
banks to U.S. Dollar LIBOR, the first of which was filed on April
15, 2011.  The complaints are substantially similar and allege,
amongst other things, that Barclays and the other banks
individually and collectively violated various provisions of the
Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state laws by
suppressing or otherwise manipulating U.S. Dollar LIBOR rates.
The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages and trebling of
damages under the Sherman and RICO Acts.  The proposed class
actions purport to be brought on behalf of (amongst others)
plaintiffs that (i) engaged in U.S. Dollar LIBOR-linked over-the-
counter transactions; (ii) purchased U.S. Dollar LIBOR-linked
financial instruments on an exchange; (iii) purchased U.S. Dollar
LIBOR-linked debt securities; (iv) purchased adjustable-rate
mortgages linked to U.S. Dollar LIBOR; or (v) issued loans linked
to U.S. Dollar LIBOR.

An additional class action was commenced on April 30, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(SDNY) against Barclays and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks
by plaintiffs involved in exchange-traded derivatives.  The
complaint also names members of the Japanese Bankers Association's
Euroyen TIBOR panel, of which Barclays is not a member.  The
complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the
Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of U.S. antitrust
laws between 2006 and 2010.

A further class action was commenced on July 6, 2012, in the SDNY
against Barclays and other EURIBOR panel banks by the plaintiffs
that purchased or sold EURIBOR-related financial instruments.  The
complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the
EURIBOR rate and breaches of the Sherman Act and the Commodity
Exchange Act beginning as early as January 1, 2005, and continuing
through to December 31, 2009.  On August 23, 2012, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the complaint.

On February 21, 2013, a class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Barclays and other EURIBOR panel banks by plaintiffs that
purchased or sold a NYSE LIFFE EURIBOR futures contract.  The
complaint alleges manipulation of the EURIBOR rate and violations
of the Sherman Act beginning as early as June 1, 2005, and
continuing through June 30, 2010.

In addition, Barclays has been granted conditional leniency from
the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in connection
with potential U.S. antitrust law violations with respect to
financial instruments that reference EURIBOR.

Barclays has also been named as a defendant along with four
current and former Barclays officers and directors in a proposed
securities class action pending in the SDNY in connection with
Barclays role as a contributor panel bank to LIBOR.  The complaint
principally alleges that Barclays Annual Reports for the years
2006-2011 contained misstatements and omissions concerning
(amongst other things) Barclays compliance with its operational
risk management processes and certain laws and regulations.  The
complaint also alleges that Barclays daily U.S. Dollar LIBOR
submissions themselves constituted false statements in violation
of U.S. securities law.  The complaint is brought on behalf of a
proposed class consisting of all persons or entities (other than
the defendants) that purchased Barclays sponsored American
Depositary Receipts on an American securities exchange between
July 10, 2007, and June 27, 2012.  The complaint asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
1934.

The Company says it is not practicable to provide an estimate of
the financial impact of the potential exposure of any of the
actions described or what effect if any that they might have upon
operating results, cash flows or Barclays financial position in
any particular period.

                         About Barclays

Barclays PLC -- http://www.barclays.com/-- is a global financial
services provider engaged in personal banking, credit cards,
corporate and investment banking, and wealth and investment
management with an extensive international presence in Europe, the
Americas, Africa and Asia.  With over 300 years of history and
expertise in banking, Barclays operates in over 50 countries and
employs approximately 140,000 people.  London, England-based
Barclays moves, lends, invests and protects money for customers
and clients worldwide.


BASS PRO: Sued in California Over Recorded Customer Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that outdoor
sporting goods company Bass Pro LLC was hit with a proposed class
action accusing the company of violating California privacy laws
by illegally recording calls with customers without their consent,
according to a case removed to federal court April 12.

Plaintiff Geoffrey McDonald said he had at least one conversation
with a Bass Pro customer service representative during which he
divulged financial information, including his credit card
information.  The company allegedly recorded the conversation
without telling McDonald, according to his March complaint, filed
in California.


BERNARD MADOFF: Judge Okays $219-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Golden, writing for Westfair Communications, reports that a
federal judge has approved a $219 million settlement in a class
action lawsuit negotiated by a White Plains law firm on behalf of
upstate unions and other bilked clients of investment funds that
fed convicted Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff's securities company.

The settlement in the feeder fund cases was negotiated by partners
at Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart P.C.  The firm represented three
upstate union locals that were lead plaintiffs in two class
actions that were part of the complex litigation.

The related cases centered on Ivy Asset Management, a Jericho,
Long Island company with longstanding business ties to Madoff
that steered its client firms to invest in Mr. Madoff's Wall
Street company.  The defendants included two asset management
companies started by White Plains attorneys and investment
advisers Joel Danziger and Harris Markhoff.

Lowey Dannenberg partner Barbara Hart, lead counsel in the
litigation, has said the settlement represents about a 70 percent
recovery of net dollars invested by the plaintiffs in Madoff's
Ponzi scheme.  She called it the largest ever negotiated by the
firm.

Attorney Thomas Skelton at Lowey Dannenberg in a statement said
the settlement combined with money expected to be recovered from a
separate liquidation of Madoff assets, is expected to restore the
bulk of losses for the unions and other plaintiffs.

Ms. Hart said the attorneys' goal now is "to get the money to the
class members in record time."

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon when approving the
settlement praised the attorneys for their hard work "to get a
global resolution of all of these cases."  She called the
settlement process, which produced no objections to the proposed
payout, "quite extraordinary."


BODY CENTRAL: Defends "Mogensen" Securities Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Body Central Corp. is defending a securities class action lawsuit
in Florida, according to the Company's March 13, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 29, 2012.

On August 27, 2012, a securities class action, Mogensen v. Body
Central Corp. et al., 3:12-cv-00954, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The amended complaint, filed on February 22, 2013, on
behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock between
November 10, 2011, and June 18, 2012, alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or misleading
statements about the Company's business and operations, thereby
causing its stock price to be artificially inflated during that
period.  The complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.  Management
believes that the complaint lacks merit and the Company intends to
defend its position vigorously.  The Company does not believe the
outcome of the class action will have a material adverse effect on
its business, financial statements or disclosures.

Founded in 1972, Body Central Corp., a Delaware corporation, is a
multi-channel specialty retailer offering on-trend, quality
apparel and accessories at value prices.  The Company operates
specialty apparel stores under the Body Central and Body Shop
banners, as well as a direct business comprised of the Company's
Body Central catalog and its e-commerce Web sites at
http://www.bodycentral.com/and http://www.bodyc.com/


BOEING CO: Foley & Lardner Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan B. House, Esq. -- bhouse@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner LLP
reports that the Seventh Circuit several years ago questioned its
ability to rely on confidential witness allegations in securities
class actions governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.  In the often cited Higginbotham v. Baxter Int'l Inc., 495
F.3d 753, 756-57 (7th Cir. 2007), the court said: "It is hard to
see how information from anonymous sources could be deemed
'compelling' or how we could take account of plausible opposing
inferences. Perhaps these confidential sources have axes to grind.
Perhaps they are lying.  Perhaps they don't even exist."

In City of Livonia Employees' Retirement Sys. v. The Boeing
Company (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a securities class action against Boeing in light of
baseless confidential witness allegations and remanded for
determination of whether plaintiffs' counsel should be sanctioned
under Rule 11.

In Boeing, plaintiffs brought a class action against Boeing and
two executives who were alleged to have deceived investors
regarding the Company's 787 Dreamliner aircraft -- specifically
the testing of the aircraft, its delivery schedule and its planned
"First Flight."  After Boeing announced that the Dreamliner's
First Flight had been canceled due to anomalies in certain wing
tests and the aircraft's delivery would be delayed, Boeing's stock
price dropped and litigation ensued.

The district court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint because
there was no support for the allegation that Boeing's top
executives had made optimistic statements regarding the First
Flight at a time when they knew the optimism was unfounded.  In
other words, i.e., plaintiff had not shown a "strong inference" of
scienter as required by Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues and Rights
Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 324 (2007).

In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs added four paragraphs
concerning a confidential witness described as "Boeing's senior
structural analyst engineer and chief engineer."  The new
allegations stated that the witness had worked on the wing tests
at issue and "had direct access to, as well as first hand
knowledge of the contents of, Boeing's 787 stress test files that
memorialized the results of the failed 787 [wing tests]."
Expressly relying on these new allegations to establish scienter,
the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The witness, subsequently identified as Bishnujee Singh, then
provided a declaration and deposition testimony in which he denied
that he was the source of the information attributed to him.  In
fact, Singh had never been a Boeing employee; he had been employed
by a contractor for Boeing.  He began working at Boeing months
after the events at issue, and he denied having any personal
knowledge of the wing testing documents or their circulation to
Boeing executives.  Moreover, he never met plaintiffs' counsel
until he was deposed by defendants' counsel. Agreeing with the
defendants that there had been a "fraud on the court," the
district court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration
and dismissed the case with prejudice.  City of Livonia (N.D. Ill.
Mar. 7, 2011).

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit noted that plaintiffs' counsel
initially had vouched for the accuracy of its investigator's
report on which the Singh allegations were based.  At oral
argument, however, plaintiffs' counsel said that Singh would not
be a witness for the plaintiffs.  With plaintiffs having abandoned
their only source of allegations supporting scienter, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action.  Plaintiffs argued
that the district court could not consider Singh's deposition and
declaration without converting the defendants' motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment.  The Seventh Circuit rejected
this challenge because plaintiffs' abandonment of Singh, the only
source of information that might have established fraud, meant
that the original dismissal of the complaint should stand.

The Seventh Circuit next considered whether plaintiffs' counsel
should be sanctioned under Rule 11.  The court said the fact that
counsel had not spoken to Singh and their investigator had
expressed qualms about her ability to verify what Singh allegedly
had told her was a "red flag" (and counsel's failure to inquire
further suggested potential "ostrich tactics").  The Seventh
Circuit remanded, however, because the district court was in a
better position to consider whether to impose Rule 11 sanctions.

Defendants' efforts to challenge confidential witness allegations
with declarations from those witnesses disavowing statements
attributed to them are not new.  Courts have been reluctant,
however, to consider these declarations when deciding a motion to
dismiss.

In In re Par Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation (D.N.J. Sept.
30, 2009), the defendants moved to strike paragraphs of
plaintiffs' complaint and sought attorneys' fees based on a
confidential witness's declaration that the plaintiffs' private
investigator misquoted her, took information out of context and
ignored other information she had provided.

Because the PSLRA requires a stay of discovery, the court felt
constrained to deny the motion to strike the allegations in
plaintiffs' pleading so as to avoid discovery and a motion to
strike every time confidential witnesses are cited in a complaint.
See also e.g., In re St. Jude Medical Inc. Sec. Litig., 836 F.
Supp. 2d 878, 901 n.9 (D. Minn. 2011) ("This court doubts the
propriety of addressing the factual accuracy of an affidavit on a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion."); In re Proquest Sec. Litig., 527 F. Supp.
2d 728, 740 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (stating that defendants had engaged
in "inappropriate discovery" in obtaining declaration of
confidential witness during the discovery stay).

Campo v. Sears Holdings Corp., 635 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D.N.Y.
2009), gave defendants hope that flawed confidential witness
allegations could be exposed promptly.  There, the court ordered
the deposition of three confidential witnesses to determine
whether they supported the allegations attributed to them for
purposes of the defendants' motion to dismiss.  After considering
"only those [confidential witness] allegations that later were
corroborated by those witnesses in depositions," the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss. 635 F. Supp. 2d at 330.

The Second Circuit found no error in the district court's order
that the confidential witnesses be deposed or in its consideration
of the deposition testimony in weighing the plaintiffs'
allegations because the court "relied upon the deposition
testimony for the limited purpose of determining whether the
confidential witnesses acknowledged the statements attributed to
them in the complaint." Campo, 371 Fed. App'x 212, at *3 n.4 (2d
Cir. 2010).

While many commentators in the defense bar thought Campo would
begin a trend, that optimism was unfounded.  The few courts that
since have considered the issue have rejected attempts to depose
confidential witnesses in advance of a motion to dismiss ruling as
unsupported by the PSLRA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See e.g., In re Cell Therapeutics Class Action Litigation (W.D.
Wash. Nov. 18, 2010) (rejecting Campo and denying a motion to
depose two confidential witnesses,); St. Jude Medical, 836 F.
Supp. 2d at 912 n.15 (finding "no authority" for allowing
depositions prior to ruling on motion to dismiss and citing PSLRA
discovery stay).

Even after a motion to dismiss has been denied, however,
defendants continue to challenge the confidential witness
allegations that allowed plaintiffs' pleadings to survive.  These
efforts too have been largely unsuccessful.  In In re Dynex
Capital Inc. Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2011)
(Freeman, M. J.), adopted by 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67756 (S.D.N.Y.
June 6, 2011), for example, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice as a sanction where six of nine
confidential witnesses had denied in sworn declarations that they
made the statements attributed to them.

Plaintiffs' counsel, of course, countered with their own
declarations, and the court called the evidence "a collection of
competing declarations" that was insufficient to establish a fraud
on the court.  The court also accepted as possible plaintiffs'
suggestion that the witnesses were now denying their prior
negative statements "to remain in the good graces of their former
employer."

In other cases, courts have determined that witnesses' sworn
statements did not necessarily conflict with the statements
attributed to the witness in the prior pleading.  See, e.g.,
Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. Medtronic, 278
F.R.D. 454 (D. Minn. 2011) (differences in what thirteen witnesses
said in their declarations and allegations in the plaintiffs'
amended complaint were "mostly innocuous" and, in many cases,
witnesses simply challenged the "implication" that plaintiffs drew
in the pleading); Local 703, I.B. of T. Grocery and Food Employees
Welfare Fund v. Regions Fin. Corp. (N.D. Ala. Aug. 23, 2011)
(review of witness affidavits and plaintiffs' investigators' notes
did not suggest that the complaint's allegations were necessarily
inconsistent with the witnesses' more recent averments).

Boeing, however, is not the only case to reconsider a motion to
dismiss based on confidential witness allegations that were
exposed as untenable. In Belmont Holdings v. SunTrust Banks (N.D.
Ga. Sept. 7, 2011), the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint,
which alleged that certain of the defendants' U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings were misleading.  Plaintiff then filed
an amended complaint adding key scienter allegations attributed to
a former SunTrust vice president, and the court determined that
those allegations allowed the complaint to survive defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The defendants' counsel later submitted two declarations in which
the witness said that: (1) he had left his position before the SEC
filings were made; (2) he had no knowledge regarding SunTrust's
operations or financials after he left his position; and (3) he
never told plaintiff's investigators that he had knowledge
relating to the time period at issue.  After examining the
witness's declarations and the declaration of the plaintiff's
investigator, the court found insufficient support for the
allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint.  The court granted
reconsideration to correct a "manifest factual error" and
dismissed the claims with prejudice.  Belmont Holdings v. SunTrust
Banks (N.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2012).  While calling the conduct of
plaintiff's counsel "troubling," the court's "close and reluctant
call" was that the conduct did not violate Rule 11.

More recently, Judge Jed Rakoff wrestled with these issues after
denying -- largely based on information attributed to confidential
witnesses -- defendants' motion to dismiss in City of Pontiac
General Employees Retirement System v. Lockheed Martin, 875 F.
Supp. 2d 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).  Lockheed Martin weeks later sought
summary judgment when four of the six confidential witnesses
disputed telling plaintiffs' investigators the information
attributed to them.

In an attempt to determine "who the heck tried to pull a fraud on
this court," on Oct. 1, 2012, Judge Rakoff heard seven hours of
testimony from the witnesses and the plaintiffs' investigator and
asked questions himself.  When the hearing ended, Judge Rakoff
opined that some of the witnesses were credible, others were not
credible, and the plaintiffs' investigator was credible "on the
whole."  He questioned, however, whether "double" and "triple"
hearsay could support an allegation in a complaint. Ultimately,
Judge Rakoff summarily denied Lockheed Martin's motion for summary
judgment.  The parties settled the case a few weeks later.

Defense counsel no doubt will be emboldened by the Seventh
Circuit's decision in Boeing.  Simple themes emerge from these
cases, however.  First, the defendants' chances of obtaining
dismissal of a complaint and/or sanctions are slim if there are
multiple confidential witnesses purportedly supporting plaintiffs'
version of events.  Second, a witness must not only dispute what
was attributed to him or her, but corroborating facts must support
the conclusion that the witness either did not say what was
attributed to him or her, or the witness was lying if he or she
made such statements.  The odds of obtaining the dismissal
achieved in the Boeing case are long, but that case shows that a
motion to dismiss may be only the beginning of the effort to
undermine confidential witness allegations.


CASH TO GO: Court Dismisses ADA Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted, in part, and denied,
in part, as moot a motion to strike class action and motion to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned KESHIA SCOTT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASH TO GO,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:13-cv-142-Orl-37KRS, (M.D. Fla.).

Ms. Scott is a blind individual. On January 4, 2013, she visited
one of the Defendant's automated teller machines.  She alleges
that the subject ATM was inaccessible to individuals who are
blind, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The
Plaintiff brought a class action suit under the ADA, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendant moved to strike the class action and to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, claiming that the action is moot. The
Plaintiff did not timely respond. At the Court's directive,  the
Plaintiff responded to the portion of the Defendant's motion
seeking to strike the class action, but not to the portion seeking
to dismiss. Separately, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class,
which the Defendant opposed.

The Defendant argued that the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the action because it has voluntarily replaced
the subject ATM with an ADA-compliant one and the Plaintiff's
claim is now moot.

The Court agreed saying it is convinced that the challenged
conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The Court found
that the non-compliance of the subject ATM was an isolated
incident. The subject ATM was replaced with an ADA-compliant one
and all of the Defendant's ATMs have been updated or replaced to
comply with ADA requirements.

The Defendant has also acknowledged its liability for the subject
ATM's prior non-compliance, calling the incident an "oversight"
and explicitly stated that it "acknowledged its lack of
compliance," Judge Dalton said.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as to the motion to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied as moot as to the
motion to strike the class action, Judge Dalton ruled.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot
and the Court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

A copy of the District Court's April 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/QcEHAnfrom Leagle.com.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Markets Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, continues to defend
itself against two remaining lawsuits relating to the operation of
the natural gas markets in 2000-2002, according to the Company's
March 13, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company and its parent, CenterPoint Energy Inc., or their
predecessor, Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and
certain of their former subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in certain lawsuits.  Under a master separation agreement between
CenterPoint Energy and a former subsidiary, Reliant Resources,
Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled
to be indemnified by RRI and its successors for any losses,
including attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of these
lawsuits.  In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business to a
subsidiary of NRG Energy Inc. and changed its name to RRI Energy,
Inc.  In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and became
a wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to
GenOn Energy, Inc. (GenOn).

In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through a merger in which
GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG.  None of the sale
of the retail business, the merger with Mirant Corporation, or the
acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI's (now GenOn's) contractual
obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries,
including CenterPoint Houston, for certain liabilities, including
their indemnification obligations regarding the gas market
manipulation litigation.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allege
violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  The Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of 1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages,
full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.  CenterPoint
Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in approximately 30 of
these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2003 and 2009.
CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since been released or
dismissed from all but two of such cases.  CenterPoint Energy
Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a defendant
in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a
conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.
In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims against the other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant period, based
on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.  In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal.  In October 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to stay the dismissal of this case
pending the filing and final disposition of their petition for a
writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In December 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.  On
January 4, 2013, the Supreme Court removed the case from its
docket since the plaintiffs' petition exceeded the applicable word
limit.  In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a corrected
petition with the Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Houston does not expect
the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- provides electric
transmission and distribution services to retail electric
providers  serving over two million metered customers in a 5,000-
square mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast that has a population of
approximately six million people and includes the city of Houston.
The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.


DIGNITY HEALTH: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that a former Dignity Health employee has filed a class action in
federal court alleging the health system is underfunding its
pension plans by $1.2 billion.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on
April 1, also alleges the company falsely claims its pension plans
are exempt from federal rules because they are "church plans."

Formerly called Catholic Healthcare West, the health system
changed its name to Dignity Health in January 2012 to reflect a
new strategy for growth that would allow partnerships with non-
Catholic hospitals with shared valued but fewer restrictions over
reproductive health care and other services.

Dignity Health's last audited annual financial report -- for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 -- shows its retirement plans were
underfunded by $1.28 billion.  That's an increase from $758
million in fiscal 2011.

Starla Rollins, a former billing coordinator at San Bernardino
Community Hospital, is the named plaintiff in a class action that
seeks to apply to 60,000 other employees of San Francisco-based
Dignity Health.  Parent company to local Mercy hospitals, the
health system has more than 7,000 employees in the Sacramento
region.

Dignity Health said in a statement the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

"We value the contributions our employees make to our mission and
we remain committed to ensuring our employees, retirees and
beneficiaries receive the benefits they have earned," the
company's statement reads.  "We have complied with the law,
including the applicable requirements for our retirement plans."

Dignity Health has defined benefit pension plans, meaning the
company has to put enough money aside to cover specific benefits.
Many employers have switched to "defined contribution" plans in
recent years to stem their pension liability.

The company's financial statement says contributions are based on
amounts sufficient to cover benefits owed plan participants.  But
it adds that "management believes these plans qualify under a
church plan exemption, and as such are not subject to Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) funding requirements."

The church plan exemption allows organizations to fund their
pension plans at a lower level.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert. in SpEd Services Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that the D.C. Circuit has
reversed the certification of a class in a sprawling lawsuit
against the District of Columbia over the provision of special
education services, a setback for the plaintiffs more than a year
after a judge found the city liable.  The appeals court ordered
U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth to reconsider class
certification under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2011's
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes.


DOW CHEMICAL: Court Hears Arguments in Pesticide Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
attorneys for Dow Chemical Co. and Dole Food Company Inc. in April
asked the Delaware Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit against them
over a now-banned pesticide that has been linked to sexual and
reproductive abnormalities.

On April 10, the state's high court heard arguments in Dow
Chemical Corp. & Dole v. Rufino.  Attorneys for the two companies
argued that the lawsuit against them should be dismissed due to
Delaware's statute of limitations.

In 1993, a number of plaintiffs filed a putative class action
claim in a Texas state court alleging personal injuries suffered
by workers in various foreign countries due to exposure to a
pesticide.

Within a short while, the case was removed to a federal court in
Texas. Issues then arose concerning federal jurisdiction over one
of the defendants, a foreign company and forum non conveniens.
The district court conditionally dismissed the suit on that latter
ground without deciding the request for class certification but it
left open the possibility of reopening the case.

Years later, it was reopened after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
parallel litigation, held there was no federal jurisdiction over
the same defendant.  Thereafter, plaintiffs asked the district
court in Texas to reopen the case and remand it to the state
court, which it did.  In June 2010, that court finally denied the
plaintiffs' request for class certification.  Then, in July 2011,
one of those plaintiffs, Jose Rufino Canales Blanco, filed suit in
Delaware.

Blanco worked on a banana plantation in Costa Rica from 1979-80 as
a contract laborer.  He alleges that during this time, he was
exposed to a now banned toxic pesticide known as
dibromochloropropane, or DBCP.  Banana farmers used DBCP to kill
worms that attack the roots of banana trees.

Exposure to DBCP is known to cause sterility, sexual and
reproductive abnormalities and even cancer.

Delaware has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
cases.  In particular, the state jurisprudence has recognized
tolling of the statute of limitations where a plaintiff relies
upon a pending class action in the same jurisdiction.

In this case, the companies argue that Delaware should not
recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling -- that is, its statute of
limitations is tolled by actions in another jurisdiction.

Last year, Superior Court Judge Jerome Herlihy ruled against the
companies. He sided with Blanco, holding that the state's statute
of limitations was tolled even though the original filing was in
another jurisdiction.

In particular, the two-year clock did not start until the 2010
decision by the judge in Texas, Judge Herlihy ruled.  In their
arguments, the companies contend the lower court's ruling -- if
upheld -- could lead to a wave of "forum shopping" lawsuits in the
state.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: May 15 Deadline Set for Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Pitcher, writing for Polygon, reports that gamers who bought
an EA football game between 2005 and 2012, could be due triple the
amount of settlement money per game thanks to recent modifications
to a $27 million settlement in a class action suit against
Electronic Arts.

Under the new terms, a claimant will now receive $20.37 per last-
gen game on PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube and Windows PC, up from
$6.79. Current-gen games on PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii will
pay out $5.85 per game, up from $1.95.

Pecover v. Electronic Arts class-action monopoly lawsuit
participants who bought a current-gen game covered under the
settlement, and for whom EA has a physical mailing address, will
automatically receive a check at the tripled rate.

Valid claims will be paid out the amounts listed above once the
claims administrator receives all of the claims and confirms that
the net settlement amount is sufficient.  However, if the total
claims exceed $27 million, then claim amounts will be reduced on a
pro rata basis.

Unfortunately, leftover money originally intended as a Child's
Play donation will now go to the federal government.  It is not
immediately clear why this modification was made.

Also outlined in the supplemental notice, the deadline to file a
claim or objection has been pushed back from the original March 15
cut-off date, so parties who wish to do so now have until May 15.

According to the notice, the settlement modifications are coming
because the number of claimants is lower than was expected.
Plaintiffs want to maximize the amount of money from the $27
million fund that will go to participants in the class action.

The notification states:

"The Court modified the distribution plan to ensure that
Settlement Class Members received as much money as possible from
the settlement fund.  The amount of money being returned to
Settlement Class Members was less than expected because fewer than
anticipated Settlement Class Members submitted claims prior to the
original close of the claims period (i.e., prior to March 5,
2013), and Electronic Arts had fewer names and physical addresses
for nonclaiming Settlement Class Members than the parties
originally believed.  The Court adjusted the distribution plan to
provide for additional money to be returned to Settlement Class
Members."

The Pecover v. Electronic Arts class-action monopoly lawsuit for
EA's exclusive rights to make Madden, NCAA Football and Arena
Football games, was brought to a head after four years of
litigation in the federal courts, when EA agreed to pay $27
million into a settlement fund last July.  The settlement was
ruled "fair" in October.

The modifications do not affect the settlement agreement demands
that EA not renew its exclusivity agreements with the Collegiate
Licensing Co.  The exclusivity agreements expire in 2014, and EA
is barred from negotiating exclusive agreements with the CLC and
National Collegiate Athletic Association for five years following.

The class-action lawsuit against EA Sports claimed the company's
exclusive licensing agreements with National Football League,
NCAA, the CLC and the Arena Football League monopolized the market
for football video games, killing any competing titles.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on April 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Exide
Technologies and certain of its officers.  The class action filed
in United States District Court, Central District of California,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Exide Technologies
between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Exide Technologies
securities during the Class Period, you have until June 14, 2013
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Exide operates in 80 countries, producing, recycling and
distributing lead-acid batteries.  The Company's global
transportation and industrial energy groups purported to provide a
range of stored electrical energy products and services for
industrial and transportation applications.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose that: (a) Exide was polluting the environment with
potentially fatal levels of arsenic, and exposing almost 110,000
residents near its Vernon, California battery recycling facility
to dangerously high levels of pollutants; (b) Exide knew that
based on actual and projected revenues and expenses it would not
be able to meet its debt repayment obligations and other pledges
and promises under its debt agreements and indentures.
Specifically, the Company knew that it could not satisfy its
obligations under a $200 million revolving facility, a $675
million bond, and a $55.7 million floating rate convertible note
due in September 2013; and (c) as a result, Exide knew its
environmental liabilities, debt obligations and potential
insolvency supported neither Exide's statements to investors
regarding the Company's financials, its quarterly guidance, nor
the inflated share price targets the investment community was
modeling based on Defendants' Class Period statements and
guidance.

On March 22, 2013, one of the Company's recycling facilities in
Vernon, California, located approximately four miles due south of
downtown Los Angeles, was cited by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District as posing a greater cancer risk to residents
of Southern California than any of the more than 450 facilities
the Agency has regulated in the last 25 years.

Following the Agency's citation, on April 3, 2013, Los Angeles
City Council members held a public hearing asking the government
to press charges against the Company to correct the health risk
posed by the Company's environmental contamination.

On April 4, 2013, news source Debtwire.com published a report that
Exide had hired financial advisory firm Lazard and the law firm of
Akin Gump LLP, both bankruptcy experts, to advise on its financial
restructuring after prior restructuring efforts stalled.  On this
news, Exide's shares fell $1.24 a share to $1.37 a share (-46%),
on April 4, before trading in the stock was halted.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and San Diego.


EYRE PENINSULA: Landowners' Class Action Set for Trial This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that about 30 people attended a meeting at North
Shields on April 15 on the class action by Eyre Peninsula
landholders whose properties were damaged in the 2005 Wangary
fires.

The Supreme Court has granted permission for about 300 landowners
to launch action against the man whose car allegedly started the
fire, and the Country Fire Service.  The trial is expected to be
held later this year, although it is subject to an appeal.

Lawyer Peter Humphries says the landowners' cases are diverse.

"They've all got their own story to tell but of course it all
rises out of damage to property," he said.

"That could be anything from buildings, fencing, equipment --
plant and equipment -- pasture -- a whole range of assets on a
farming property and indeed any non-farming property for that
matter which is caught up in the fire."

Mr. Humphries says there is some frustration it is taking so long
for the case to be settled.

"People do get frustrated not least of which I put myself in that
category but some things you really can't hasten unfortunately and
the delay is unfortunate but largely unavoidable," he said.

According to Yahoo!7's Jessica Adamson, a class action for victims
of the bushfires that killed nine people on South Australia's Eyre
Peninsula in 2005 is dividing the community in Wangary.  Some
victims want out of the class action, claiming Country Fire
Service (CFS) volunteers who risked their lives are being
persecuted.  Nine people, including two children, perished in the
Eyre Peninsula's Black Tuesday.

At a meeting in Wangary on April 15, those who lost property were
told why they have automatically been included in a multi-million
class action against the CFS, and the man whose vehicle started
the blaze, Marco Visic.

Lawyers say 300 parties are on board, but some locals are opting
out, saying it is time to move on.

Farmer and CFS volunteer Mark Modra lost $200,000 worth of stock
and assets.  He wasn't well insured but says joining the class
action would be a vote of no confidence in his neighbors.

"While many people have lost much and have been hurt greatly by
this fire, I think this class action is just going to prolong that
and further divide it," he said.

"CFS is made up of volunteers, it's made up of people from our
community.

"You are persecuting those people in your community who are acting
on your behalf to try and do the best they can."

Those who choose to opt out must notify the Supreme Court by early
next month.  If mediation fails, it is likely a trial will begin
against Marco Visic later this year.

"Depending on the outcome of that, the possibility of a trial
against the CFS sometime early in 2014," Mr. Humphries said.

The CFS is trying to have the action quashed.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Plaintiffs Appealed "McGrogan" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the class action
lawsuit titled McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank, according to
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation's March 13, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The action alleges that First
Commonwealth Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum
interest rate of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as
long as the class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA
account.  The class asserts that the Bank committed fraud,
breached its modified contract with the class members, and
violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market
Rate Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a
roll-over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate.  At that time,
there were 237 account holders with an average age of 64, and the
aggregate balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings accounts totaled
approximately $11.5 million.  The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages
for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for the
alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection
Law violations and attorney's fees.

On July 27, 2011, the court granted class certification as to the
breach of modified contract claim and denied class certification
as to the fraud and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law claims.  The breach of contract claim is
predicated upon a letter sent to customers in 1998 which reversed
an earlier decision by the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the
accounts.  The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will
serve as notification that a decision has been made to re-
establish the rate on your account to eight percent (8%).  This
rate will be retroactive to your most recent maturity date and
will continue going forward on deposits presently in the account
and on annual additions."

On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment and dismissing the class action
claims.  The Court found that the Bank retained the right to
resign as custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning
as custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of
the underlying IRA contract.  The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal
with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation --
http://www.fcbanking.com/-- is a financial holding company that
is headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania.  The Company provides a
diversified array of consumer and commercial banking services
through its bank subsidiary, First Commonwealth Bank.  The Company
also provides trust and wealth management services and offer
insurance products through FCB and the Company's other operating
subsidiaries.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Supreme Court Won't Review Subrogation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that two health insurers have won -- at least temporarily -- a bid
to remand to state court their lawsuits against Glaxo-SmithKline
seeking reimbursement for the coverage they provided for their
insureds who were injured by the drugmaker's Avandia diabetes drug
and Paxil antidepressant drug.

At issue in the case is whether the health insurance carriers are
entitled to get from GSK the names and information identifying
their insureds who have sued over GSK products.

Even as U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania remanded UnitedHealth Group and Humana
Health Plan's lawsuits against GSK, Judge Rufe seemed to signal in
a brief opinion that GSK may ultimately succeed in removing the
cases back to federal court.

"The court appreciates that it appears likely that once complaints
have been filed the state-court actions will be removable on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction under ERISA [Employee
Retirement Income Security Act] or CAFA [Class Action Fairness
Act] but cannot hold that this is necessarily so," Judge Rufe
reasoned because of the bright-line rule that cases cannot be
removed on the basis of a writ of summons alone.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Sikirica
v. Nationwide Insurance that a summons is not an initial pleading
in the way that a complaint is that triggers the right of a party
to remove a case to federal court under federal-question
jurisdiction or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, Judge Rufe
said.

Judge Rufe's order in UnitedHealth Group v. GSK and Humana Health
Plan v. GSK came in the same week in which the U.S. Supreme Court
denied certiorari from a Third Circuit decision that private
insurers that provide Medicare benefits have the right to recover,
just as the federal government does, from GSK for expenses
incurred for injuries consumers have suffered by taking the
drugmaker's Avandia diabetes drug.

The Third Circuit is the first circuit court to determine that
Medicare Advantage/Part C organizations, or private insurers that
get paid by the government to provide Medicare benefits, have the
same right as the government to make subrogation claims and assert
liens in federal court against settlements plaintiffs receive, The
Legal Intelligencer previously reported.

Before the cases were removed to federal court from the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Judge Mark I. Bernstein had
ruled that the health insurance carriers are entitled to names and
information identifying insureds who sued GSK.

The issue is one of first impression, as previously reported.

The insurance companies are seeking pre-complaint discovery of
plaintiffs who have either sued GSK for Avandia- and Paxil-related
injuries, who have settled with GSK or who have entered into an
agreement with GSK that has tolled their claims.

Judge Bernstein reasoned in 2011 that the insurers cannot assert
subrogation claims against GSK without identifying the insureds on
whose behalf they would assert those claims.

"Defendants, as the alleged tortfeasors, are not justified in
withholding an insured's identity from its insurer that wants to
sue on his or her behalf, even if defendants and the insured have
signed a confidentiality agreement," Judge Bernstein said.

However, Judge Bernstein said UnitedHealth is not entitled to
identifying information of plaintiffs it has never insured in
order to pursue a class action on behalf of similarly situated
health plans.  Plaintiffs who are not insured by UnitedHealth have
not voluntarily given their information to UnitedHealth and would
have no way of knowing that their personal information was being
released, Judge Bernstein said.

GSK filed the notice of removal of the cases in 2011 on the same
day that Judge Bernstein rendered his opinion and a day before the
opinion was docketed, The Legal previously reported.

Gerald Lawrence, of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart in West
Conshohocken, Pa., said his clients are pleased with the judge's
order.

GSK did not respond immediately to a request for comment.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Tax Return Delays
----------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that as tax providers across the nation prepare to put
their busy season behind them on April 15, one has found itself
named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit in southern
Illinois' federal court.

Two women filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Illinois against H&R Block Inc., claiming the
provider's erroneous preparation of tax returns that included
forms for education credits resulted in delayed refunds.  Ursula
Millett and Jeanine Sanlorenzo brought the suit on behalf of
themselves more than 100 potential class members who had federal
income tax returns including Form 8863 for the year 2012 that were
filed before Feb. 22 and prepared by the defendants.

Form 8863 according to the complaint, "is a document that can be
completed by a taxpayer to claim 'education credits' based upon
eligible student expenses paid during the taxable year." The suit,
which also names HRB Tax Group Inc. and HRB Technology LLC as
defendants, explains that taxpayers can claim either the American
Opportunity Credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit, which provide
eligible taxpayers credits ranging between $2,000 and $2,500.

Previously, the suit states, "lines determining eligibility for
tax credits in the Form 8863 could be left blank and still
indicate to the Internal Revenue Service that the taxpayer
qualified for the student tax credit."

The IRS began to require certain information be entered in the
eligibility lines at the start of the 2012 tax season, but the
suit asserts that "H&R Block's tax software continued to permit
the lines to be left blank, which has resulted in the delay of
thousands of refunds."

"According to the IRS, about 10 percent of the 6.6 million (i.e.
600,000) tax returns using Form 8863 were affected by the error,"
the suit states.  "Based on the fact that other tax preparation
providers such as Turbo Tax filled out the same form correctly,
the overwhelming majority of the erroneous returns were filed by
H&R Block."

Ms. Millett, an Illinois resident, patronized an H&R Block office
in Belleville and Ms. Sanlorenzo, a Pennsylvania resident, went to
the provider's Philadelphia office.

Both women claim they paid the defendants to prepare and file
their 2012 returns and "opted out" of their arbitration agreement.
Their suit asserts their returns were filed Feb. 4, but that they
didn't receive refunds until nearly two months later on March 27.

In mid-March, the complaint alleges, some H&R Block customers
received a mass email that explained the IRS had confirmed an
issue related to Form 8863 and that refunds could be delayed for
another four to six weeks.  Shortly after that email, the suit
states that H&R Block CEO Bill Cobb issued a public statement that
acknowledged "we made a mistake when the tax return was sent to
the IRS" and apologized to customers.

"Despite this admission, Defendants did not offer compensation to
Plaintiffs or any Class member," the suit asserts.  "Nothing
Plaintiffs or any Class member did could have contributed to the
error, which was the sole result of the conduct of H&R Block Inc.,
and its subsidiaries."

As a result of H&R Block's "mistake," the two women claim they and
the class "have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial
monetary damages including" the amount they paid for the tax
provider's services, as well as what they had to pay third parties
to correct the defendants' errors.

The suit includes claims for breach of contract and negligence, as
well as violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and the Missouri Merchandise Practices
Act.  It seeks damages "including compensatory damages,
consequential damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and any
other damages provided under relevant laws," in addition to
litigation costs, attorneys' fees and pre- and post- judgment
interest.

Edward Wallace, Kenneth Wexler and Amy Keller of Wexler Wallace
LLP in Chicago and Sherrie Savett and Eric Lechtzin of Berger &
Montague in Philadelphia submitted the complaint on the
plaintiffs' behalf.


HOMESERVICES LENDING: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. James Lorenz issued an order denying a motion
for class certification in the lawsuit captioned MARK BUCHANAN and
BRIAN SHAW Plaintiffs, v. HOMESERVICES LENDING LLC., dba
HOMESERVICES; and DOHERTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants,
Civil No. 11cv0922 L (MDD), (S.D. Cal.).

This putative class action stems from an action initially brought
by Mr. Buchanan on April 29, 2011 against Defendants Homeservices
Lending LLC (HSL) and Doherty Employment Group, Inc. On February
27, 2012, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Consolidation to
also include Brian Shaw's claims against the Defendants in this
action. On October 11, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint alleging three "class action claims for relief" in
addition to several individual claims for violations federal and
California state wages and hours laws. On October 29, 2012, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification of the "class
action claims" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On
the same day, the Defendants filed a Motion to Deny Class
Certification of the alleged class action claims.

On April 25, 2013, Judge Lorenz granted the Defendants' motion and
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
prejudice saying the Plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements for
certification under both Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

A copy of the District Court's April 25, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Te6Rybfrom Leagle.com.


INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE: Borrowers Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
eCreditDaily reports that two years after bank regulators took
their initial "enforcement" action against mortgage servicers in
the mostly-defunct Independent Foreclosure Review, checks to
nearly 4 million eligible borrowers have started to arrive at
mailboxes nationwide.

But anger persists among the recipients of these checks -- the
vast majority amounting to hundreds of dollars each --
representing payouts that fall vastly short when truly accounting
for the wrongdoing by the named banks and their servicers,
according to the borrowers, consumer advocates and some lawmakers.

Check recipients have taken to forums, social media and various
news and blog sites urging each other to keep banding together and
form class-action lawsuits against the banks.

At least one forum had registered nearly 600 IFR borrowers, with
many calling for legal action, by late afternoon on April 16.
Thousands of checks were received on April 16, and many more were
set to be delivered.

A borrower said she received a check for $300.00 and was not able
to deposit it.  Her bank informed her more than once that there
was no money in the account.

Borrowers under the Independent Foreclosure Review settlement,
reached with 13 mortgage servicers earlier this year, have the
option to file lawsuits for rightful compensation -- an action
that will undoubtedly unfold over the next few months as checks
continue to be mailed out by Rust Consulting, the paying agent for
the regulators.

There is no IFR appeal process.  Regulators have made that clear.
"The payment amount is final," both the Comptroller of the
Currency and the Federal Reserve say on their IFR web pages.

The one bright spot: Regulators said borrowers were not required
"to execute a waiver of any legal claims they may have against
their servicer as a condition for receiving payment."

A payment framework was recently released by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, with
compensation scattered within a sweeping range -- from $300 to
$125,000.

Out of 3.9 million borrowers, about 2.5 million will get a few
hundred dollars each.

Nearly 9,000 borrowers qualify for compensation ranging from
$24,000 to $125,000 -- involving foreclosures that were initiated
or completed against borrowers who had not defaulted on their
mortgages or who were meeting all requirements of a documented
forbearance plan or were protected by federal bankruptcy law.

Some qualify to receive $3,000 to $50,000 after servicers failed
to convert them to permanent mortgage modifications, even after
the homeowner completed successful trial periods or were
performing all requirements under trial periods.

Nearly 900,000 borrowers who were denied mortgage modifications
qualify for an amount between $1,000 and $6,000.

Below those categories in severity of financial harm, botched
mortgage modifications played a large part in the amounts
configured for payouts, mostly ranging from $300 to $800.  But
there is much ambiguity in these supposed lower categories. More
than 900,000 borrowers fall under this heading: "Servicer who did
not engage with borrower in a loan modification or other loss
mitigation action."

"People who managed to get far enough along in the [modification]
process, many of them will get a decent payment," Alys Cohen of
the National Consumer Law Center told ProPublica.  "But people who
suffered servicer neglect clearly are not getting compensation for
the harm they suffered."

Many borrowers have complained of not being placed in the rightful
category, some saying they should have been placed in more than
one category.

Checks are being sent "in several waves beginning with 1.4 million
checks on April 12," the OCC said.  The final wave is expected in
mid-July 2013.  But more than 90 percent of the total payouts to
borrowers by 11 servicers are expected to be sent by the end of
April.

The banks and their servicing affiliates that are part of the IFR
agreement are: Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs,
HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, Morgan Stanley, PNC,
Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo.


INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a merger-related class action
lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's March 13, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 1, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of Vertro,
Inc. ("Vertro"), an Internet company that owns and operates the
ALOT product portfolio, comprised of both browser-based consumer
applications and websites.  Vertro's operations are now part of
the Company's Applications segment.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York against Vertro Inc., its
directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of
a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the "New York Action").
Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the
same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3 and 10, 2011,
against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and were
ultimately consolidated by the Court (the "Delaware Action").  The
plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions alleged
that Vertro's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and
Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged
breach of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs asked that the merger
be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief.  The
Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was complete the
plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the Delaware
Court on March 20, 2012.

The defendants in the New York Action also moved to dismiss the
complaint, or in the alternative to stay proceedings.  The New
York Court granted Defendants' motion to stay on February 22, 2012
and, as a result of this ruling, the Court denied without
prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's
pending request for expedited discovery.  The Plaintiffs in the
New York action then filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 19,
2012, and, on July 9, 2012, the Defendants moved to dismiss that
complaint for failure to state a claim.  A hearing was held on
January 31, 2013, regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Inuvo, Inc. -- http://www.inuvo.com/-- a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, is an Internet marketing and
technology company that develops consumer applications and
delivers targeted advertisements onto websites reaching desktop
and mobile.  The Company sources advertisements either directly
from merchants or through media companies who consolidate
advertisements.


INUVO INC: Renewed Bid for Summary Judgment Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc. and other defendants' renewed motion for summary
judgment remains pending, according to the Company's March 13,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as "control persons."  The Plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class
period, Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted
material information.  The court granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final
judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.  The
Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's
prior orders dismissing certain claims.

On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged
misstatements and reversed the court's prior order on summary
judgment and the case has been remanded to the District Court.  In
October 2012 the District Court entered an order maintaining the
existing stay on discovery and setting forth a schedule for
briefing by the parties on the defendants' renewed motion of
summary judgment.

Inuvo, Inc. -- http://www.inuvo.com/-- a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, is an Internet marketing and
technology company that develops consumer applications and
delivers targeted advertisements onto websites reaching desktop
and mobile.  The Company sources advertisements either directly
from merchants or through media companies who consolidate
advertisements.


INVENTURE FOODS: Added as Defendant in "Anderson" Suit vs. Jamba
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc., has been added as defendant in the class
action lawsuit titled Kevin Anderson v. Jamba Juice Company,
according to the Company's March 13, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 29, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company learned that the Jamba Juice Company
was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the
Federal Court for the North District of California and captioned
Kevin Anderson v. Jamba Juice Company, which claims that the use
of the words "all natural" to describe the Smoothie Kits is
misleading and deceptive to consumers and violates various
California consumer protection statutes and unfair competition
statutes.  The lawsuit is one of several "all natural" lawsuits
recently brought against various food manufacturers and
distributors in California.  In an amended complaint the plaintiff
also alleged violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
but the court dismissed those claims in a ruling issued in August
2012.  In a second amended complaint filed in September 2012, the
Company was added as a defendant.  Under the Company's license
agreement with the Jamba Juice Company, the Company is obligated
and has agreed to indemnify and defend Jamba Juice in the lawsuit,
and Jamba has tendered defense of the claim to the Company.

While the Company currently believes the "all natural" claims on
the Smoothie Kits are not misleading and in full compliance with
FDA guidelines, the Company is investigating the claims asserted
in the action, and intends to vigorously defend against them.  The
plaintiff is seeking to certify a class of all persons in
California who bought certain of the Jamba Juice Smoothie Kits,
and the plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class
certification was April 1, 2013.

Inventure Foods, Inc. -- http://www.inventurefoods.com/-- a
Delaware corporation is a marketer and manufacturer of
healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food brands.  The
Company is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, with plants in
Arizona, Indiana and Washington.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Litigation Lenders Eye Hip Implant Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that a flurry of press releases
trumpeted a victory for Johnson & Johnson on April 16 in the
second bellwether trial in litigation over allegedly defective hip
implants.  One of the most prominent releases came from Legal-Bay,
a company that lends funds to mass tort plaintiffs.  Legal-Bay is
promising to continue providing hip implant plaintiffs with cash
advances of up to $50,000 in spite of the adverse verdict.


KADANT INC: Accrued $379,000 for Claims & Costs in Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Kadant Inc.'s Kadant Composites LLC subsidiary
(Composites LLC) sold substantially all of its assets to a third
party.  Through the sale date of October 21, 2005, Composites LLC
offered a standard limited warranty to the owner of its decking
and roofing products, limited to repair or replacement of the
defective product or a refund of the original purchase price.
Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement, Composites LLC
retained certain liabilities associated with the operation of the
business prior to the sale, including the warranty obligations
associated with products manufactured prior to the sale date.
Composites LLC retained all of the cash proceeds received from the
asset sale and continued to administer and pay warranty claims
from the sale proceeds into the third quarter of 2007.  On
September 30, 2007, Composites LLC announced that it no longer had
sufficient funds to honor warranty claims, was unable to pay or
process warranty claims, and ceased doing business.  All activity
related to this business is classified in the results of the
discontinued operation in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements.

On October 24, 2011, the Company, Composites LLC, and other co-
defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide class
action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites decking
building products manufactured by Composites LLC between April
2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in Connecticut
state court.  In 2012, the Company paid $647,000 with respect to
approved claims under the class action settlement.

As of December 29, 2012, the Company has accrued $40,000 for the
payment of remaining claims under the class action settlement and
$339,000 in related costs, according to the Company's March 13,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 29, 2012.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The Company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The Company is based in Westford,
Massachusetts.


MARCHESE HOSPITAL: 300+ People Join Chemo Drug Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Spowart, writing for Metro, reports that the class-action
lawsuit being filed on behalf of cancer patients who received
watered-down chemotherapy drugs is gaining momentum.

About 360 people have signed onto the suit, about a third of those
who reportedly received the medicine, Matthew Baer of Siskinds law
firm said on April 15.

The London firm, in conjunction with lawyers in Windsor, announced
the legal action April 3 as Marchese Hospital Solutions came under
fire for adding too much saline to bags of medication.

Mississauga-based Marchese was contracted to prepare the medicine
for five hospitals, including London Health Sciences Centre.  More
than 1,200 cancer patients, including 691 receiving treatment at
the London Regional Cancer Program, are believed to have been
given the drugs.

Marchese has been given notice of the pending legal action.  In a
statement posted on its web site, the company refutes reports the
medicine was "defective," saying it's "confident" the drugs all
"contract requirements."

The company has not responded to interview requests.

"These types of cases can take four to six years, at a minimum it
will take a couple of years, and I have seen them take 15 years,"
Baer said about the lawsuit.  "At any point, the case could be
settled, you just never know."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Riddell Ruling May Raise Questions on Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Colorado jury recently determined that helmet manufacturer Riddell
failed to adequately warn a former football player about the
dangers of concussions, with the verdict coming mere days after
company lawyers sought to have Riddell severed from a nationwide
class action suit against the NFL playing out in Philadelphia.

The New York Times recently reported that the Colorado jury
returned a hefty verdict against Riddell Helmets, with the
country's largest helmet manufacturer ordered to pay $3.1 million
in damages to Rhett Ridolfi, a 22-year-old man who sustained a
head injury back in 2008 while conducting a drill with his high
school football team.

It is not yet clear what type of effect the Colorado case, which
occurred in Las Animas County District Court in Trinidad, Colo.,
would have on the federal class action injury case against the
National Football League, but some legal observers view this as
important.

"Although this verdict appears to be an anomaly, it could indicate
that juries are placing more responsibility on manufacturers to
explicitly warn about the limitations of helmets," Missouri-based
attorney Paul Anderson wrote on his Web site,
NFLConcussionLitigation.com  "In addition, judges may be more
willing to allow a jury to decide whether a warning would be
heeded, as opposed to deciding the case summarily on the papers."

Both sides in the NFL case recently met in court for the first
time during oral arguments over the league's motion to dismiss the
litigation, which is being initiated by a large number of former
players who argue the league fraudulently concealed the long-term
health risks related to on-the-field head injuries.

The players' injury case is being handled as an MDL, or
multidistrict litigation, docket being overseen by U.S. District
Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

There are currently more than 4,000 plaintiffs in 200-plus
individual lawsuits that have been consolidated into the MDL in
Philadelphia.

In addition to hearing arguments over the NFL's motion to dismiss,
Judge Brody also listened to attorneys representing Riddell who
argued that the case brought against their clients should be heard
separately from the case against the NFL.

One Riddell attorney said in court that not one plaintiff in the
NFL case identified a particular helmet with a specific defect.

The judge said that argument goes to a motion to dismiss, not a
motion to sever, although the lawyer still maintained that the
Riddell claims shouldn't be lumped in with the NFL's case brought
by the former players.

California attorney Martin Buchanan, however, said during the
proceeding that joinder in a case like this is appropriate.
"Here we have a common thread that's running through all of these
cases and that is the NFL," he told Judge Brody.  "The duty to
warn is really the verifying theme here."

It was not yet clear when Judge Brody would rule on the NFL's
motion to dismiss and Riddell's motion to sever.

Meanwhile, in the Colorado case, a Riddell spokesman was quoted in
the New York Times as saying that the company is "confident that
the jury would have reached a different conclusion had the Court
not erroneously excluded the testimony of our warnings expert."

"We intend to appeal this verdict, and we remain steadfast in our
belief that Riddell designs and manufactures the most protective
football headgear for the athlete," the spokesman said, according
to the Times.

The jury in Colorado determined that Riddell's negligence was to
blame for Mr. Ridolfi's head injuries, which led to paralysis on
the left side of his body following the football drill five years
ago.  But while the jury concluded that Riddell failed to warn the
plaintiff of the dangers of concussions, if also rejected claims
that there were design defects in the defendant's product.

Riddell's statement following the verdict said that the company
was pleased that the jury found the helmet itself was not
defective in any way.


NEW YORK: NYPD Directed to Produce 2 Cops in Stop-and-Frisk Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that tempers flared on April 19 as
federal Judge Shira Scheindlin demanded that the New York City Law
Department produce two officers for identification by a black
plaintiff who claims he was stopped, questioned and frisked on the
steps of his home without reasonable suspicion.  "I'm directing
the city to produce these officers," Judge Scheindlin said.  "I'm
ordering it.  I've really had it with this identification."


NY STOCK EXCHANGE: May 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 15 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York:

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO SUBMITTED ORDERS (DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH AGENTS) TO PURCHASE OR SELL NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE-LISTED
SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1999 THROUGH OCTOBER 15,
2003, THAT WERE LISTED ON THE SPECIALISTS' DISPLAY BOOK (i.e.,
submitted electronically via the DOT or Super DOT systems).

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing previously scheduled for March 13, 2013 will be held on
May 22, 2013, at 12:00 p.m., before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet,
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York, for the purpose of determining (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation
for the total principal amount of $18,500,000 in cash plus accrued
interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the final orders and judgments should be
entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
should be approved.

If you submitted orders (directly or through agents) to purchase
or sell New York Stock Exchange-listed securities during the
period January 1, 1999 through October 15, 2003 ("Class Period"),
that were listed on the Specialists' display book (i.e., submitted
electronically via the DOT or Super DOT systems), your rights may
be affected by the settlement of this Litigation.  In the unlikely
event that 100% of the Compensable Transactions incurred by Class
Members that are entitled to a distribution under the Plan of
Allocation described below participate in the settlement, the
average payment will be approximately $4.00 per Compensable
Transaction, assuming that each Compensable Transaction is the
same size and amount.  This amount may need to be allocated if
more than one Class Member is associated with the particular
Compensable Transaction.  The actual amount may change based on
the number of shares and the display book price in each
Compensable Transaction.  If you have not received a detailed
Revised Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, you may obtain copies by writing to NYSE Specialist
Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler Claims Administration, P.O. Box
240, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0240 or on the internet at
http://www.NYSESpecialistsLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, but if you desire to be excluded from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by
April 19, 2013 (previously due by February 6, 2013) in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice.  All Members of the
Class who have not timely and validly requested exclusion from the
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement dated October 24, 2012
and the Van der Moolen Settlement.  If you wish to object to the
settlement you must do so by April 29, 2013 (previously due by
February 18, 2013).  The detailed Notice explains how to exclude
yourself or object.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

DATED: FEBRUARY 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CONTACT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Rick Nelson
         Telephone: 800-449-4900


SAC CAPITAL: Insider Trading Settlement Gets Conditional Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that Federal Judge Victor Marrero has
conditionally approved a $602 million insider trading settlement
between SAC Capital Advisors and the SEC, but questioned the SEC's
"neither admit nor deny" settlements and cited Judge Jed Rakoff's
refusal to sign off on a $285 million deal between Citigroup and
the SEC.  Judge Marrero also took the unusual step of conditioning
final approval of the SAC deal on the outcome of the appeal in the
Citi case.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Class Cert. Ruling in "Anwar" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the class action lawsuit against
a subsidiary, according to the Company's March 13, 2013, Form 8-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

GlobeOp Financial Services S.A. and its subsidiaries (the "Group")
was named as a defendant in an action (the "Anwar Action") pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York as a putative class action against multiple defendants,
relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and Greenwich Sentry Partners
L.P. (the "FG Funds") and the FG Funds' losses as a result of
their investments managed by Bernard Madoff.  The complaint
alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the Group and negligence in
the performance of its duties.  Motions to dismiss have been filed
by all parties to the action, including on behalf of GlobeOp.  The
judge dismissed one allegation regarding gross negligence against
GlobeOp but denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss.  The
Group has filed a motion to deny class certification and the
ruling on that motion has not yet been rendered.  Merits discovery
among the plaintiffs, GlobeOp and the co-defendants is ongoing.
The Group believes it has complied with the terms of its service
agreements with the FG Funds and that it does not have any
fiduciary obligations relating to the FG Funds or its investors,
and therefore intends to defend this matter vigorously.

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- is
a Delaware corporation based in Windsor, Connecticut.  The Company
is a provider of mission-critical, sophisticated software products
and software-enabled services that allow financial services
providers to automate complex business processes and effectively
manage their information processing requirements.  The Company's
clients include commercial lenders, corporate treasury groups,
insurance and pension funds, municipal finance groups and real
estate property managers.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Millennium Actions v. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary
against the so-called Millennium Actions, according to the
Company's March 13, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in
various jurisdictions or threatened naming GlobeOp Financial
Services S.A. and its subsidiaries (the "Group") as a defendant in
respect of claims arising out of valuation agent services
performed by the Group related to the Millennium Global Emerging
Credit Fund L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging Fund Ltd. (the
"Millennium Funds"), including an arbitration proceeding in the
United Kingdom on behalf of the Millennium Funds' investment
manager with a yet-to-be-determined claimed amount, a threatened
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom involving the
liquidator on behalf of the Millennium Funds in an amount yet-to-
be-determined, and a putative class action in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in
the Millennium Funds asserting claims of $844 million, which is
alleged to be the full amount of assets under management by the
Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation.  These actions
arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances described in
the criminal and civil complaints filed by the U.S. Department of
Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively,
against the portfolio manager of the Millennium Funds' investment
manager.  The Group has concluded that any obligation in these
matters is remote.

The Company believes that the Group has strong defenses to the
Millennium Actions, and it is vigorously contesting these matters.

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- is
a Delaware corporation based in Windsor, Connecticut.  The Company
is a provider of mission-critical, sophisticated software products
and software-enabled services that allow financial services
providers to automate complex business processes and effectively
manage their information processing requirements.  The Company's
clients include commercial lenders, corporate treasury groups,
insurance and pension funds, municipal finance groups and real
estate property managers.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Facing Class Suit in Aussie Over Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Lannin, writing for ABC, reports that around 90 councils,
charities and churches in April announced plans to sue global
ratings agency Standard & Poor's for more than AUD200 million over
toxic investments which plunged in value during the global
financial crisis.

The organizations, including New South Wales and Western
Australian councils, bought complex products issued by collapsed
US investment bank Lehman Brothers, and won a class action lawsuit
against the local arm of Lehman last year.

The products, known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations
(CDOs), were linked to the US housing market.

Litigation funder IMF Australia says the investors will claim that
the AAA and AA credit ratings S&P gave to the products were made
without a reasonable basis.  It alleges that S&P falsely
represented that its credit ratings on the CDOs were objective,
independent and not influenced by conflicts of interest.

The liquidator of Lehman Brothers Australia has offered a
settlement to former Australian clients of AUD211 million, or less
than half the value of their investments.  The councils, churches
and charities are expected to share around AUD70 million in
compensation if the settlement is approved by creditors and the
Federal Court.

IMF executive director John Walker says the compensation received
from the Lehman Brothers case will be deducted from any successful
claim for damages in the S&P case.

"Ratings agencies played a pivotal role in the misallocation of
billions of dollars worldwide from 2005 to 2008, and it is
important they be held accountable," he said in a statement.

Mr. Walker says IMF is planning to file damage claims in Europe
against banks, S&P, and rival ratings agency Moodys.

Last year, the Federal Court ruled that S&P had mislead 13 New
South Wales councils when it gave top investment rankings to
complex investments known as constant proportion debt obligations.

The court ordered S&P, European bank, ABN Amro, and investment
manager Local Government Financial Services to pay damages of just
over AUD20 million.

The companies have appealed against the ruling.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Camry Sudden Acceleration
-------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that the family of a woman who
drowned when her 2009 Camry sped out of control and plummeted into
a river has sued Toyota Motor, which already faces hundreds of
lawsuits over deaths and injuries caused by accidents attributed
to sudden acceleration.  The case -- which highlights the driver's
911 emergency call -- draws parallels to a 2009 accident that
prompted Toyota to recall nearly 10 million vehicles


UNITED STATES: Physicians File Class Action Over TRICARE Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that in the latest bid
by healthcare providers to recover payments under a healthcare
program for military personnel, a group of physicians has sued the
government for failing to reimburse the doctors at the proper rate
for patient services delivered during 2010.

A proposed class action by doctors Elijah Berg and Sarah Delaney-
Rowland was filed on April 12 on behalf of all doctors and
physician groups in the United States that provided medical care
to military members and their dependents in the latter half of
2010.  The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, named Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel,
the official operator of the military health program, TRICARE, as
the sole defendant.

In the action filed on April 12, a group of physicians claimed
that TRICARE violated its obligation to pay them in accordance
with Medicare payment rules.  A 2010 law, the Preservation of
Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act,
required a 2.2 percent increase in the formula used to determine
physician payments under Medicare between June 1 and Dec. 31,
2010.  According to the lawsuit, TRICARE failed to adjust its
reimbursements to mirror the Medicare formula, which resulted in
tens of thousands of doctors being underpaid.

TRICARE declined to comment on the litigation.

The alleged error affected the majority of the estimated 780,000
doctors in the country, said Alexander Pires, a lawyer for the
physician plaintiffs.  While the underpayments to each individual
doctor were modest, the total shortfall amounted to between $90
million and $100 million, he said.

"The TRICARE system, which takes care of our military, is very
important.  We want to encourage doctors to take good care of the
military.  The way to encourage them is to pay them on time and to
pay them fairly," Mr. Pires said.

The litigation comes on the heels of two similar lawsuits, both by
hospitals seeking to recover payments from TRICARE.  On April 1, a
coalition of five hospitals filed a proposed class action on
behalf of 1,700 hospitals, accusing TRICARE of improperly capping
reimbursements to hospitals for numerous outpatient services in
violation of federal regulations.

Last year, a proposed class of 5,000 hospitals sued TRICARE,
claiming $9 billion in underpayments, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  Justice Department lawyers argued
in that case that the hospitals were not challenging a final
agency action and therefore could not bring the suit under the
Administrative Procedure Act.  The court sided with the
government, dismissing the case in October.

The same group of lawyers has filed all three lawsuits.  In the
complaint filed on April 12, they steered clear of the
Administrative Procedure Act and, instead, relied on the legal
theory of breach of contract.

The physicians' case is Berg v. Hagel, U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, No. 13-502.

For Berg et al: Alexander Pires of Pires Cooley; Gregory Brodek -
GABrodek@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris; Benjamin Chew of
Patton Boggs; Kenneth Anderson of the Law Offices of Kenneth
Anderson.

For Hagel: Not immediately available.


VISA INC: Class Action Lawyers Seek $720 Million in Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
According to Thomson Reuters' Alison Frankel, in 2003, lawyers
representing a class of five million merchants in antitrust class
action litigation against Visa and MasterCard asked U.S. District
Judge John Gleeson for $609 million in fees.  They told the judge
that they'd litigated all the way to jury selection in a case so
vigorously defended that they'd had to oppose certiorari at the
U.S. Supreme Court, and they'd achieved historic results: a $3
billion settlement fund for class members -- at the time, the
largest-ever recovery for Sherman Act violations -- and injunctive
relief that added billions more to the overall value of the deal.
Their fee request represented 18 percent of the present-day cash
value of the settlement fund and 9.7 times the lodestar value of
their billings, but only about 2 percent of what they estimated to
be the total value of the deal.

Judge Gleeson was having none of it.  In a December 2003 opinion,
he called the initial fee request "excessive," "absurd" and
"fundamentally unreasonable."  Judge Gleeson instead awarded
$220.3 million -- about 6.5 percent of the settlement fund and a
lodestar multiplier of 3.5.  The judge said he considered that fee
to be "generous," and was only willing to award such an
extraordinary amount of money because class counsel, led by the
firm now known as Constantine Cannon, had obtained extraordinary
results in a high-risk case.

Ms. Frankel said "I'm bringing you this little history lesson to
inform your consideration of the request for $720 million in fees
filed on April 12 with Gleeson by Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi;
Berger Montague; and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.  The three
firms are class counsel in another merchants' antitrust class
action against Visa and MasterCard, this one involving transaction
processing "swipe fees" charged by the credit card companies.
Like their predecessors in the 2003 case, which involved
supposedly improper linkage of debit and credit cards, the swipe
fee class lawyers have obtained a record cash settlement, $7.25
billion, and valuable, industrywide injunctive relief. (I should
note that the controversial deal has not yet received final
approval.  Class lawyers filed a separate motion for approval on
the same day as the fee request.) Plaintiffs' lawyers in the swipe
fee case argue that their unprecedented results, coupled with the
nearly 500,000 hours expended by the 40 plaintiffs' firms that
worked on the case and would share in the fees, justify the
outsize award.

"The requested fees are more than plaintiffs' lawyers received in
the $7.2 billion Enron securities class action and the $7.8
billion BP settlement of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill case.
Class counsel in the Enron case, which was arguably less risky
than the swipe fee litigation and consumed fewer hours of lawyer
time, were awarded $688 million, or about 9.5 percent of the
class's cash recovery.  BP plaintiffs' lawyers are slated to get
$600 million.  But according to a report by plaintiffs' fee
expertCharles Silver of the University of Texas School of Law,
those numbers indicate that the swipe fee lawyers' request is in
line with fees in other megacases.  My Reuters colleague Andrew
Longstreth reported that class counsel in the $3 billion Tyco
securities class action were awarded $464 million, which is more
than the 10 percent requested in the swipe fee case."

Clearly, Robins Kaplan, Berger & Montague and Robbins Geller
learned from Judge Gleeson's opinion in the previous credit card
litigation.  Their request for 10 percent of the cash value of the
deal is notably less than the 18 percent requested by class
counsel in the 2003 case, and the multiplier on their $161.7
million in lodestar fees is 4.5, rather than the 9.7 multiplier
originally requested in the 2003 settlement.  The swipe fee
lawyers based their lodestar fees on an average hourly rate of
$360, which encompasses fee rates over the nine years of the case,
rather than relying on an average rate for 2012.  If they had used
current rates instead of historical rates, their lodestar
multiplier would have been under 4 and closer to the 3.5
multiplier Judge Gleeson calculated in the 2003 award, which was
based on class counsel's then current rates.  Plaintiffs' lawyers
in the swipe fee case also provided Judge Gleeson with a detailed
breakdown of audited hourly billings and expenses from all of the
firms in the litigation, as well as explanations from class
counsel of the hard work that produced their record recovery.
Considerable thought and effort went into this fee request.

Nevertheless, you have to wonder if class counsel shouldn't have
gone back and read Judge Gleeson's 2003 opinion a few more times.
In the 2003 case he awarded 6.5 percent of the cash fund, much
less than the 10 percent they requested.  Moreover, he explicitly
endorsed the idea of declining percentages for lawyers as the size
of the recovery increases.  So if he awarded 6.5 percent in a case
involving a $3 billion fund, should lawyers start with a request
for 10 percent of a $7.25 billion fund? That doesn't seem to
comport with the judge's reasoning in 2003.  Nor was Judge Gleeson
inclined to boost the percentage based on the value of injunctive
relief.  In the 2003 case he said that relief had informed his
decision on the award, yet he still only granted 6.5 percent of
the cash fund.

Moreover, the 2003 credit card settlement wasn't nearly as
contentious as the proposed swipe fee deal, which has been
renounced by almost half of the original name plaintiffs as well
as, most recently, a trade group representing many of the
country's largest retailers.  Members of the class, which consists
of about 8 million merchants, have until May 28 to opt out or
object to the settlement.  Judge Gleeson ordered that class
counsel submit their fee request at the same time they request
final approval of the settlement, presumably because he wanted
class members to have a chance to weigh in on appropriate fees.
Given the controversy the proposed settlement has attracted, we
can probably expect the requested fees -- which will come out of
the class's recovery -- to prompt additional objections.
Ironically, Constantine Cannon, which took a hit from Judge
Gleeson in the 2003 fee opinion, represents key objectors in the
swipe fee case.  Partner Jeffrey Shinder declined to comment.

Craig Wildfang of Robins Kaplan, who originated the swipe fee
litigation soon after leaving the Justice Department's Antitrust
Division, pointed to the class's brief and expert reports, which
discuss the risky nature of the case and the public policy
benefits of encouraging such litigation.  "At the end of the day,"
he said, "you put in a fee request that you think is fair and
reasonable and you hope the judge agrees."


WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Judge Rejects Plaintiff's Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Intelligencer reports that a federal judge in Pittsburgh
has struck a plaintiff's class claims against Wendy's
International before the class certification stage, finding
questions of whether each plaintiff falls under the Americans with
Disabilities Act defeats the commonality and typicality
requirements for class certification.


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Has Responded to Amended "Marcano" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc., has responded to the second amended
complaint filed by Ivan Marcano, according to the Company's
March 13, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 13, 2012, an alleged purchaser of the Company's publicly
traded common stock, Ivan Marcano, filed a securities class action
in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled
Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290.  The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements or
omitted to state facts necessary to make the disclosures not
misleading inn its Form S-1, and the amendments thereto, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.  The claims
are asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  On March 15, 2012, April 3, 2012, and May 24, 2012, three
additional and substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the
same court, some adding the Company's underwriters as defendants.
All four cases were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was
deemed operative.  On August 24, 2012, the Company filed a
demurrer to the consolidated complaint.  Subsequently, the
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Company's outside directors and
its underwriters from the litigation without prejudice.  On
November 9, 2012, the court sustained the Company's demurrer with
leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14,
2013, again asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The second amended complaint seeks
compensatory damages and equitable relief on behalf of the class
for an amount to be proven at trial.  The Company filed its
response to the second amended complaint, and the Company believes
the lawsuit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
it.  The Company believes there is insufficient evidence to
indicate whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has
been incurred as of December 31, 2012, nor can the Company
estimate the range of potential loss.

ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc. -- http://www.coolsculpting.com/-- is a
medical technology company focused on developing and
commercializing products utilizing its proprietary controlled
cooling technology platform.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


* Judge Allows Customer Review Class Action v. Dentist to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that a proposed class action accusing
a Manhattan dentist of forcing patients to sign a contract barring
them from writing negative comments on customer review Web sites
may continue, a federal judge has ruled.  According to the suit,
the dentist refuses to treat patients unless they agree in writing
to refrain from publishing any commentary about their treatment,
and that if they do write any commentary, the copyright will
belong to the dentist.


* Lexjus Sinacta Discusses Ruling in Italian Suit v. Tour Operator
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Masutti, Esq. -- a.masutti@lslex.com -- and Orsola Zane, Esq.
-- o.zane@lslex.com -- at LS Lexjus Sinacta report that for the
first time in Italian court history, a private class action
seeking to obtain damages from a tour operator has been
successful.

A class action is a form of legal action devised to protect the
"homogeneous" individual rights of consumers and users.  It was
introduced (after several unsuccessful attempts) on January 1,
2010 in Section 140bis of the Consumer Code.  However, since the
law entered into force, there has been a relatively low rate of
use of class actions.  This is mostly a result of the rigid
wording of the law and the review that such actions are subject to
before being admitted as class actions.

Before the reform of the law, a class action could be brought only
in cases in which harm was alleged to have been caused to a number
of consumers or users in connection with:

   -- "contracts entered into by many different consumers or users
with the same company and in the same situation, including rights
pertaining to contracts entered into in accordance with Sections
1341 and 1342 of the Civil Code;

   -- identical rights of the end users of a given product to
claim against the manufacturer of that product, regardless of
whether a direct contractual relationship exists between the
manufacturer and the end user; or

   -- identical rights of consumers or users to receive
compensation for losses caused by unfair business practices or
conduct in breach of principles of fair competition."

In the course of proceedings before the Court of Naples, Article
140bis of the Consumer Code was amended by Decree-Law 1/2012,
which extended its application.  As amended, the law no longer
refers to the 'identical rights' of claimants to bring a class
action; it will now be sufficient if the rights being enforced are
"homogeneous".

                              Facts

On February 18 2013 the Court of Naples issued Decision 2195, by
which it accepted the claim for damages submitted by a group of
consumers who had complained of loss because of a "ruined
holiday".  A tour operator was the subject of this class action
for damages amounting to 80% of the price paid for the holiday
package.  This action was possible because of the provisions
contained in Article 140bis.

The holiday package did not correspond with the tour operator's
description of the holiday.  It should have included a stay at a
four-star hotel in a resort in Zanzibar, Tanzania from Christmas
2009 to New Year's Day 2010.  As it emerged during the
investigation, for the first part of the holiday the group of
travellers stayed in a lower quality hotel than had been promised;
the claimants where subsequently moved to the hotel advertised in
the package.  However, this hotel was well below the quality and
standard promised in the brochures.  In particular, the entire
complex was under renovation at the time and many of the promised
services were thus unavailable.

All of these conditions represented a breach of the tour
operator's contractual liability.  In particular, it was made
clear that the tour operator was well aware that the quality of
the services rendered fell below that mentioned in the advertised
package; documented proof of this was obtained during the
investigation.  As pointed out in the judgment, the tour operator
was unable to argue successfully that the lack of correlation
between the advertised services and those actually rendered was
not its contractual responsibility and, therefore, it could not
argue that another party was liable (eg, the hotel owner).

                             Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the court held that the holiday had
been "ruined", as "the discomfort and afflictions" suffered by the
travellers did not allow them to "fully enjoy the holiday as
opportunity for recreation and rest".  In accordance with Article
140bis, the court awarded damages to a number of claimants, making
the case the first successful private class action in Italy.

                        Future Implications

At the time that this case commenced, Article 140bis provided that
a class action could be invoked only for "the contractual rights
of a plurality of users and consumers who pay in respect of the
same company in the same situation".  However, the modification of
Article 140bis during the course of the proceedings, as underlined
by the Naples court, effectively extended the availability of
class actions and made them easier to initiate.

The replacement of the term "identical rights" with 'homogeneous
rights' was a key factor in allowing the court to hear class
action cases initiated by parties with similar rights; as a
result, the Naples court awarded damages on the grounds that the
homogeneous rights of the travellers were denied on account of the
ruined holiday.

Without the reform of the law during the proceedings, the court
could not have awarded class damages, because the identical nature
of the situation would have been very difficult -- if not
impossible -- to prove.

This reform of the Consumer Code will have a significant impact on
future class actions and should lead to a simplification of the
system (and reduce the strictness of interpretation), as the
modification of Article 140bis allows a class action to be brought
in all cases in which a group of consumers or users have
homogeneous rights.


* Online Travel Cos. Face $55-Mil. Judgment in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Texas Lawyer reports that around the country, state and local
governments have sued online travel companies, seeking allegedly
unpaid occupancy taxes.  A group of 173 Texas cities and
municipalities have scored a $55 million win in the first such
class action to proceed to final judgment, according to the
plaintiffs' attorney.  But lawyers for both sides say the seven-
year battle is far from finished.


* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record Low, PwC Reveals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that investors received the
lowest amount in federal securities class action settlements in a
decade last year and the number of new cases was lowest since
2009, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The report, "At the Crossroad, Waiting for a Sign," noted that the
pace of new securities cases slowed during 2012 with 21 percent
fewer cases filed in the second half.

In all, investors received $2.3 billion in settlements of
securities cases last year, the lowest amount since 2002.  The 172
U.S. securities class actions filed last year was the lowest since
2009, when 157 were filed.

Last year lacked the kind of triggers that sparked lawsuits in
recent years, such as accounting scandals at China-based companies
with U.S.-listed shares and the 2008 financial crisis.

The 33 cases filed in the fourth quarter was the slowest three-
month period since the second quarter of 2009, when there were 30,
according to the report.

The U.S. presidential election, concerns about the "fiscal cliff,"
or the automatic government spending cuts that were avoided with a
last-minute deal, and even superstorm Sandy in the Northeast, led
to the slowdown, according to the report.

The slower pace of cases has continued into 2013, Patricia Etzold,
a PwC partner who wrote the report, told Reuters.  Still, she
doubted the lull would last.

"The plaintiffs' attorneys are continuing to be very active.
Where that's focused is yet to be seen.  There's definitely more
incentive for them to work with certain potential whistle-blowers
in pursuing those cases," said Ms. Etzold.

The health industry was the target of 22 percent of the securities
cases filed, the highest portion since the sector accounted for 23
percent in 2003.

The report said the rise in the health industry might reflect an
increase in cases tied to the efficacy of drugs or medical
devices.  The report pointed to a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling
in the Matrixx Initiatives Inc v. Siracusano case, in which the
high court ruled that companies cannot rely on statistical
significance in deciding what they need to disclose to investors.

Of the 38 securities lawsuits against healthcare companies, 13
were tied to product efficacy.  The other securities cases against
healthcare companies were related to mergers or business practices
such as Medicare billing.

Cases filed in the 2nd and 9th Circuits fell below 50 percent of
all cases for the first time in five years, largely due to the
drop in cases in the 9th Circuit, which includes California.  The
decline was largely due to a 39 percent drop in cases against the
computer services companies and a 60 percent drop against
telecommunications companies.


                             *********

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  * * *