CAR_Public/130507.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 7, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 89

                             Headlines


AMERICAN INSURANCE: N.Y. Judge Trims Toxic MBS Class Action
APOTEX: Watkins Law Firm Sues Over Birth Control Pill Recall
APPLE INC: Consumers Get iPhone 4 Class Action Settlement Checks
AT&T: Supreme Court Affirms U-Verse Class Action Dismissal
AT&T MOBILITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Text Spam Class Suit

AUTOLIV INC: Facing Securities Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of MBS Class Action
BAYER HEALTHCARE: 40 Mirena IUD Suits Consolidated in New York
BEN & JERRY'S: Astiana Can't Intervene in Tobin Suit
BOK FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Impose Sanctions v. Former Employee

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Health Minister Misses Opt-Out Deadline
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Dismissal of Frozen Pizza Lawsuit Sought
CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Remains Pending in Indiana
CATHOLIC HEALTH: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Suit Pending

CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Awaits Court Okay of MOU in Shareholder Suit
COMCAST CORP: Judge Won't Certify Employee Suit v. Cable Unit
EASYHOME LTD: June 10 Hearing to Approve C$2.25MM Settlement
ELECTRONIC ARTS: June Trial Set for Madden NFL Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals Court Tosses Class Action Settlement

HAWAII SCHOOL FOR DEAF & BLIND: $5.75MM Settlement Approved
HOME DEPOT: Workers' Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
LA LAKERS: Fan's Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Dismissed
LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Reconsideration Bid Ruling in IPO Suit
LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Class Action Suit in California

LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Awaits OK of HQS IPO Suit Settlement
LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION: Judge Allows Discrimination Suit to Proceed
METRO NASHVILLE PUBLIC: Facing Class Suit to Keep School Open
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: June 20 Class Action Certification Hearing Set
NETFLIX INC: In Dispute With Plaintiffs Over Attorney Fees

NORTHWEST PIPE: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Filing of Accord in Merger Suits
PHILIP MORRIS: Questions Certified in Medical Monitoring Suit
PHILLIPS AGENCY: Fisher & Phillips Discusses Court Ruling
PHOENIX COS: Facing Securities Class Action

PHOENIX COS: June 17 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
PILOT FLYING J: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Rebate Program
PINNACLE GROUP: Tenants Want Court to Overturn Settlement
PLY GEM: Selling Substandard Windows, Suit Says
ROYAL BANK: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Claims to Proceed

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
RUPERT MURDOCH: News Corp. to Get $139-Mil. Settlement Payout
SPECTRUM PHARMA: O'Mara Firm Files Securities Class Action
ST-CHARLES BORROMEE: Accord Reached in Patient Abuse Class Action
STANDARD & POOR'S: IMF Challenges "Lack of Merit" Statement

TITANIUM DIOXIDE: Court Rules on Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony
TORCHMARK CORP: "Fitzhugh" Class Suit Dismissed in December
TORCHMARK CORP: Trial Involving United American to Continue Oct.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Unit Continues to Defend Securities Suit
USEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Employee Class Suit

VERIZON COMMS: Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Class Action Upheld
VOLVO GROUP: Judge Refuses to Certify Engine Defect Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Ex-Assistant Manager Files Overtime Class Action
WARWICK VALLEY: Partners Defend Consumer Class Action Suits
WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Test Samples at Park Following Class Action

WINNEBAGO COUNTY, IL: Strip-Search Class Action Settlement Okayed
WIVENHOE DAM: No Timeline for 2011 Flood Class Action

* 3 Court Decisions Target Attorney Fees in M&A Settlements
* 9th Cir. Continues Campaign v. Settlement Conflicts of Interest
* BYOD May Trigger Employee Privacy Class Actions
* Confidential Settlement Agreement in Glass MDL Not Discoverable
* Homeowners in Foreclosure-Abuse Settlement Received Bad Checks

* Immigrant Detainees' Right to Counsel Expanded After Suit
* ILG Fights TRO Over $5.5MM Fee Award in Wage-and-Hour Suit


                             *********


AMERICAN INSURANCE: N.Y. Judge Trims Toxic MBS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that thanks to an influential 2011
decision by the Second Circuit, American Insurance Group has
trimmed down a class action alleging that the company misled
investors about its exposure to toxic mortgage-backed securities.
In an April 26 ruling, a New York judge dismissed claims that
AIG's offering materials for sales of common stock from 2006 to
2008 misstated its credit risk.


APOTEX: Watkins Law Firm Sues Over Birth Control Pill Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Chai, writing for Global News, reports that a law firm in
Thunder Bay, Ont. is launching an C$800-million class action
lawsuit against Apotex, the distributors of birth control pill
Alysena that was recalled earlier last month.

Meanwhile, federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq has launched an
investigation into the timing of Apotex's recall, which some have
said was unduly delayed.

Thunder Bay-based law firm Watkins Law Professional Corporation
says Apotex didn't protect its consumers from faulty packaging, in
which an extra row of placebo pills were included in a batch of
Alysena 28.

"This drug has now been subject to a recall, but in its wake
consumers have been left in emotional shock and turmoil and now
face the life-altering consequences of this serious product and/or
manufacturing defect.  Consumers have detrimentally relied upon
this product," the statement says.

Lawyer Christopher Watkins says women could join the class action
on the premise if they got pregnant because of the placebo, or if
they experienced emotional stress from taking the recalled
product. So far, about half a dozen women have joined the class
action.

"They do not have to have gotten pregnant to join the class
action," Mr. Watkins told Global News.

He said that in some instances, if women deliver babies with birth
defects or any issues that would need additional care, they could
sue for damages linked to these costs.  Meanwhile, other women may
have taken time off work to deal with pregnancy, the fallout of
relationships or health concerns.

"The gamut is very wide," Mr. Watkins said.

On April 8, Health Canada warned women that the product contained
two weeks' worth of placebos instead of one.

It added that the "possibility of unplanned pregnancy cannot be
ruled out."

About 50,000 packets of the product with the recalled lot number
LF01899A was distributed across Canada, except for in Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Days later, the recall was expanded to include 11 additional lots
of the pill, but only as a precautionary measure.

Now, Mr. Watkins is appealing to women across Ontario and other
parts of Canada to contact him on the firm's website or to call
807-345-4455.

Mr. Watkins says that he filed the class action after a few women
reached out to him.  Only three people are needed to form a class
action.  The claim has been issued in the Superior Court of
Justice in Thunder Bay, Mr. Watkins said.  He says he anticipates
that other provinces could be taking on their own cases.

Ms. Aglukkaq has ordered an investigation into why Canadian women
were not immediately informed of the recall.  An initial recall
notice by Apotex was sent to retailers and distributors but a
public notice wasn't released until five days later.

"I am concerned that Canadians may not have received important
information in a timely manner," the minister said in an e-mailed
statement.

American and Canadian lawyers say that it'll be tricky to prove
pain and suffering or that pregnancy occurred as a direct result
of taking the recalled birth control.

"The short story is that people will very likely bring lawsuits in
Canada against this manufacturer," said Harvard University
professor and Canadian Glenn Cohen.  "They'll have to show the
mistake regarding the placebo caused them to be pregnant and had
it not been one of these placebo pills, they would not have gotten
pregnant."

Dr. Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at New York University,
says suing for emotional stress will be an uphill climb.

"The pain and suffering side strikes me as hard to show.  That
said, this is exceedingly unlikely to go to trial -- there will be
a settlement," Dr. Caplan speculates.  He's head of the division
of medical ethics at New York University medical school.

Apotex spokesperson Elie Betito told Global News that the company
will not comment on legal proceedings before the court.

An Ontario judge recently gave the green light to a class action
lawsuit against Bayer regarding birth control pills Yaz and
Yasmin.

At the heart of this class action are allegations that women
across Canada were kept in the dark about the increased risk of
blood clots, stroke, heart attack and gallbladder disease and
other medical conditions they had from taking these contraceptives
compared to other birth control pills.

Similar cases have already taken place in United States, and some
have already resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements.


APPLE INC: Consumers Get iPhone 4 Class Action Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Desilva, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that payday has come for
some of the first responders to the iPhone 4 class action lawsuit.
Last February a settlement was reached that granted iPhone 4
owners who had not previously received a free bumper for their
"defective" iPhones a $15 payout.  Several of our readers are now
reporting that they received their settlement checks on April 22.
The first checks were issued on April 17, 2013 and are void after
July 16.  Unfortunately the deadline for submitting a claim has
passed so if you missed out the first time around it seems you are
out of luck.

The settlement found:

Apple was "misrepresenting and concealing material information in
the marketing, advertising, sale, and servicing of its iPhone 4 --
particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone
antenna and reception and related software."

Apple paid out a total of $53 million in the settlement, which was
lawyers took a hefty $16 million chunk.


AT&T: Supreme Court Affirms U-Verse Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Barthold, writing for FierceIPTV, reports that a class action
suit against AT&T U-verse service has no legs because the
plaintiffs agreed to arbitration, not legal action, in the event
they were dissatisfied with service, the Supreme Court affirmed on
April 22.

The court declined to hear arguments in the class action suit and
effectively dismissed arguments by four plaintiffs who said they
had been denied a fair jury trial, according to an article in
Law360.  The high court agreed with two lower court rulings that
affirmed AT&T's claims that "the plaintiffs all agreed to the
arbitration clause at the time of purchase via a so-called pop-up
clickwrap agreement, which requires users to click a button saying
they agree with the terms of service before continuing their
transaction," the legal publication's story continued.

The class action suit represented two million U-verse high bitrate
DSL technology users.  It claimed "breach of contract, fraud and
other violations" based on "systematic defects that result in slow
connections, service interruptions, failed phone connectivity,
freezing of movies or high definition channels and an inability to
watch different shows on different TVs," the story said.

In an August 2010 complaint in the Western District of Oklahoma,
the plaintiffs said the poor service showed "an intentional and
willful decision by AT&T to sacrifice quality for greater profits"
and that the company had "intentionally scrimped on the system's
underlying infrastructure," the Law360 piece said.

That original claim was dismissed by an Oklahoma judge based on
arbitration clauses within the AT&T contract that said,
essentially, consumers could not sue the company but had to submit
to arbitration in these types of complaints.  A Tenth Circuit
appeals court agreed and the case went to the Supreme Court which
also agreed, effectively ending the matter.

When asked for AT&T's reaction to the court decision, AT&T
spokeswoman Kuriko Hasegawa told FierceIPTV, "We're pleased with
the Court's decision, as we believed the petition and the
underlying claims were without merit."


AT&T MOBILITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Text Spam Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth
Circuit on April 17 affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class
action accusing AT&T Mobility LLC of sending spam text messages,
finding the company had a right to invoke the arbitration clause
in the plaintiff's wireless contract.  Suing on behalf of
subscribers of now-defunct carrier Unicel Inc., plaintiff
Alexandra Severance appealed a September ruling by U.S. District
Judge Richard A. Jones compelling arbitration.  She argued that
the lower court erred in allowing AT&T to invoke the arbitration
clause designed to resolve disputes with Unicel.


AUTOLIV INC: Facing Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on April 18 announced that a
class action suit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Autoliv, Inc. ("Autoliv" or the "Company") (NYSE: ALV) common
stock between October 26, 2010 and August 1, 2011, inclusive (the
"Class Period")

The complaint charges Autoliv and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period,
Autoliv was engaged in wrongful anti-competitive business
practices with other automotive industry suppliers. The complaint
further alleges that by February 2011, the United States
Department of Justice ("DOJ") had begun investigating Autoliv's
anti-competitive practices and potential antitrust violations. In
June 2011, the antitrust authorities of the European Commission
(the "EC") raided Autoliv's German subsidiary seeking evidence of
Autoliv's anti-competitive misconduct.

On July 25, 2011 the Company disclosed in its second quarter
earnings conference that the Company had already spent upwards of
$4 million on legal fees and could no longer predict what impact
the antitrust investigations would have on its previously reported
and future gross margins and earnings, the price of Autoliv stock
fell, closing below $62 per share on August 2, 2011.

Then on June 6, 2012, the DOJ announced that Autoliv had agreed to
plead guilty to price fixing of automobile parts installed in U.S.
cars and to pay a $14.5 million criminal fine. In so doing,
Autoliv admitted to its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of
seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels installed in U.S. cars to
one automobile manufacturer and a separate conspiracy to fix
prices of seatbelts to another car manufacturer.

No Class has yet been certified in the action. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number. June 17, 2013
is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff
appointment.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- http://www.bgandg.com-- is
a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the
aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as
well as securities arbitration.

                           *     *     *

New Orleans-based firm Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the
former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., also
issued a statement reminding investors of the deadline to file
lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action.  The
statement said, "If you purchased shares of Autoliv and would like
to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you
and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn ( lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com ) or KSF Partner Melinda
Nicholson ( melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com ) toll free at 1-877-
515-1850. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class
action, you must petition the Court by June 17, 2013."


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of MBS Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of
America NA and U.S. Bank NA on April 22 asked a federal judge to
toss a putative class action alleging that, as trustees to certain
residential mortgage-backed securities, they failed to protect
investors, arguing their duty was limited.

The banks, which acted as trustees for RMBS that pooled mortgages
owned by Washington Mutual NA, had very limited duties to
investigate or flag problems with the loans, a lawyer for the
banks argued at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Katherine B.
Forrest in Manhattan.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: 40 Mirena IUD Suits Consolidated in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that approximately 40 lawsuits
filed over problems associated with the Mirena intrauterine
contraceptive device have been coordinated in multidistrict
litigation before a federal judge in New York.  Plaintiffs lawyers
have said in court documents that they expect hundreds, possibly
thousands of cases against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.


BEN & JERRY'S: Astiana Can't Intervene in Tobin Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White in San Francisco, Calif., denied
the request of Skye Astiana to intervene and be appointed interim
lead counsel in the class action lawsuit, COLLEN TOBIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CONOPCO INC., and BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC.,
Defendants, No. C 12-05881 JSW (N.D. Cal.).

Judge White also denied Ms. Astiana's alternative request to stay
litigation in TOBIN V. CONOPCO INC., pending resolution of Ms.
Astiana's own class action lawsuit against the same defendants.

Conopco and Ben & Jerry's do not oppose Ms. Astiana's motion.
Colleen Tobin opposes Ms. Astiana's motion.

Ms. Astiana is the named Plaintiff in Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's
Homemade, Inc., 10-CV-4387-PJH, in which she asserts claims
against Ben & Jerry's for common law fraud, violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, violations of California's
False Advertising Law, and restitution based on "quasi-
contract/unjust enrichment." Each of these claims is based on
allegations that Ben & Jerry's labeled certain of its ice cream,
frozen yogurt, and popsicle products as "All Natural," when these
products contained alkalized cocoa, a non-natural ingredient. The
parties in the Astiana case reached a settlement, but Judge
Hamilton rejected the agreement at the final approval hearing.

After Judge Hamilton denied the motion for final approval, Ms.
Tobin filed the action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and the matter was transferred to the District
Court in San Francisco by the consent of the parties.

Ms. Tobin asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of express written
warranty under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. These claims also
are premised on an "All Natural" label, and Ms. Tobin includes
allegations regarding alkalized cocoa, as well as allegations that
Defendants have used Genetically Modified Organism food
ingredients.

Judge Hamilton denied a motion to relate the Tobin case with the
Astiana litigation, prompting Ms. Astiana to seek to intervene in
the Tobin litigation.

A copy of the Court's April 22, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/EVx8xGfrom Leagle.com.

                 Calif. Court Denies Tobin Accord

Meanwhile, Reuters reported that Judge White was slated to hold a
hearing April 19 on Ben & Jerry's proposed $1.33 million
settlement of the Tobin class action.  Judge White indicated in an
order earlier that week that he's inclined to deny preliminary
approval of the deal.

Sarah Pierce, writing for The Class Action Lawsuit, reported that
Judge White wants both sides to explain how the deal would benefit
Class Members over a previous deal that was rejected in September.
The settlement agreement would allow consumers to receive between
$6 and $50.  Judge White wants both sides to explain why the
agreement "substantially reduces" the funds available for Class
Members from a $7.5 million class action settlement proposed in a
related case.

According to Ms. Pierce, a federal court earlier rejected a
proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit Astiana v. Ben &
Jerry's Homemade Inc. on several grounds, including that poor
notice was given to Class Members and because it capped the payout
to consumers without receipts to only $6 while millions of dollars
from the settlement would have gone to Ben & Jerry's parent
company Unilever's own charity.  One of the objectors to the
Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's settlement was Ms. Tobin, who filed her
own class action lawsuit the day after the deal was rejected.
According to Ms. Pierce, Ms. Tobin claims the new deal with Ben &
Jerry's solves the problems with the previous case, but Judge
White was unconvinced.

Reuters noted that the class action was originally filed two years
ago. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who was presiding over
the case, appointed Ms. Astiana as lead plaintiff, and lead
counsel, Braun Law Group, The Law Offices of Janet Lindner
Spielberg, and Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec.  In March
2012, Judge Hamilton granted preliminary approval to a $5 million
common fund settlement that would give Ben & Jerry's consumers
between $6 and $20 each, depending on whether they could show
proof of purchase.  Whatever was left over would go to Unilever's
charitable foundation.  Plaintiffs' lawyers would receive $1.25
million on top of the $5 million.

Reuters recounted that, as the notice and claims process was under
way, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Dennis
v. Kellogg, striking down a $7.25 million deceptive labeling
settlement with a $5.5 million cy pres component and $2 million in
lawyer fees.  When the Ben & Jerry's settlement came back to Judge
Hamilton for final approval, she took note that only a tiny
percentage of class members had filed claims totaling less than
$35,000. Under Kellogg, the judge said, she could not approve a
settlement that delivered so little money to the class and so much
to charity and plaintiffs' lawyers.

Reuters said Ben & Jerry's lawyers from Morrison & Foerster
initiated three-way settlement discussions with the two sets of
plaintiffs' lawyers, proposing a deal that would satisfy
Hamilton's cy pres concerns.  According to William Stern, Esq., of
MoFo, Tobin's lawyers agreed to the proposal.  Astiana's rejected
it.

According to Reuters, despite the split, all of them believed that
the two class actions should proceed before one judge, so they
asked Judge Hamilton to accept transfer of Tobin as related to
Astiana.  She refused because the Astiana class didn't include GMO
claims and the Tobin class did.  Plaintiffs' lawyers from the
Astiana case then moved to intervene in Tobin, arguing that their
case had been hijacked.  Meanwhile, Tobin's counsel (Grenville
Pridham, The Lavery Law Firm and Christopher Langone) filed a
motion asking Judge White for preliminary approval of the $1.3
million settlement they'd reached with Ben & Jerry's.

According to Reuters, the second settlement, unlike the rejected
$5 million deal, is structured on a claims-made basis. Because
response rates to the magazine notices from the first settlement
were so low, Ben & Jerry's proposed running online banner ads and
sending out 400,000 emails compiled through Facebook likes.
Consumers who filed claims would be entitled to between $6 and $50
on a pro rata basis, with no proof of purchase required. If the
fund were oversubscribed, Ben & Jerry's would kick in an extra
$500,000; if it were undersubscribed, the extra money would go to
a charity. Legal fees to plaintiffs were not specified, though the
motion said they would be about a quarter of the $1.25 million
requested by the Astiana counsel.


BOK FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Impose Sanctions v. Former Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that New Mexico U.S.
Magistrate Judge Lorenzo Garcia refused on April 19 to impose
sanctions against Elizabeth Morantes, a former BOK Financial Corp.
employee for allegedly withholding documents as part of a proposed
civil rights class action she and two other female employees filed
against the company, pointing out that one of the documents BOK
demanded might be protected by attorney-client privilege while the
other might not exist.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Health Minister Misses Opt-Out Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Fayerman, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that
Dr. James Halvorson is the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit
against the B.C. government over fees that doctors in the province
didn't receive from 1992 to 1996 when they treated patients who
were delinquent with their Medical Services Plan premiums.

Health minister Margaret MacDiarmid missed the November deadline
to opt out of a $100 million class-action lawsuit against the B.C.
government, the B.C. Supreme Court was told on April 22.

Justice Elaine Adair is hearing a suit over fees that doctors in
the province didn't receive from 1992 to 1996 when they treated
patients who were delinquent with their Medical Services Plan
premiums.  Although doctors treated the patients, the government
didn't pay them.

By court order, the suit applies to all doctors who were
practicing in B.C. between July 23, 1992 and April 30, 1996,
excluding doctors who were members of the Medical Services
Commission at any time during that period.

Dr. MacDiarmid is a family physician and practiced in Rossland in
the 1990s.  She was appointed health minister last fall.

Legal arguments over the common issues in the trial began on
April 22 but the case is not expected to be resolved for months.

Dr. MacDiarmid's situation was the very first order of business in
court.  Arthur Grant, representing the doctor plaintiffs,
submitted a letter which he received from MacDiarmid in March.  In
the letter, Dr. MacDiarmid said she regrets missing the opting out
date but hopes her letter serves as notice that she wishes to be
excluded from the suit.

"She has an obvious dilemma since she is also a doctor and falls
within the definition of the class," Mr. Grant told Justice Elaine
Adair, who certified the suit as a class action last summer.

Justice Adair said she's not sure what Dr. MacDiarmid meant by
asking to exclude herself from the suit.

"Without her here, we can't go further with that," Justice Adair
said, noting that it could mean that Dr. MacDiarmid might want to
litigate the matter as an individual or she may want to abandon a
claim for fees altogether.

On April 22, Dr. MacDiarmid said in an interview that she'll take
the matter up with government lawyers to "make sure it all gets
sorted out."  She said she only realized a few months ago about
the opting out legal formality, and that she'd missed the date.
She was advised by a deputy minister to write the letter asking
for exclusion.

"My letter may not have been clear about what I was seeking but I
was essentially saying 'if I was ever in the suit, I don't want to
be in it.'"

Asked if she thinks government lawyers dropped the ball by not
advising her to opt out by the deadline period, she said she'd
only been health minister a few months at that point so it might
have been overlooked.  It's the first and only time that being a
doctor and health minister has presented a difficulty, she said.

The government maintains it had the legal authority to drop B.C.
residents from the health insurance plan if they had failed to pay
their premiums.  Government documents show that there were up to
360,000 residents who weren't insured because of nonpayment.

Dr. James Halvorson, a Duncan emergency physician, is the lead
plaintiff in the suit.  He says the government broke laws by
receiving money from the federal government that should have been
used to cover the costs of medical care for patients, including
those who hadn't paid their premiums.

Mr. Grant said he believes emergency doctors bore the brunt of bad
debt but many of the 7,000 doctors practicing medicine during the
time period covered by the suit would have submitted bills that
were denied.

During the period covered by the suit, doctors had no way of
knowing a patient's MSP status.

Throughout the trial Mr. Grant will argue that cancelling
enrolment of B.C. residents who didn't pay their premiums was
against the spirit and laws of the public health care system.

The case has taken 15 years to get this far.

Ryan Jabs, spokesman for the ministry of health said:

"Because this is part of an ongoing court case, we cannot comment
on discussions with the minister related to it."  He did say that
MacDiarmid has excused herself from all discussions within the
ministry about the case.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Dismissal of Frozen Pizza Lawsuit Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Stone, writing for LaMesa-MountHelix Patch, reports that Katie
Simpson's class action lawsuit over frozen pizzas is half-baked,
according to defendants California Pizza Kitchen and Nestle USA
Inc.  In April, lawyers from Los Angeles and Washington filed a
motion to dismiss the $5 million suit by Simpson of San Diego, who
bought pizzas mainly at the Target store near Cuyamaca College in
Rancho San Diego.

Her suit targets partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, or PHVO,
which it says is the main source of trans fat in the American diet
and "used in dangerous quantities in the Nestle Trans Fat Pizzas."

But L.A. attorneys Dale Giali and Andrew Edelstein and
Washington's Carmine Zarlenga, representing the pizza-makers, on
April 12 filed a request for a hearing on June 6 in San Diego
federal court.  The lawyers want Judge Janis Sammartino to toss
out the pizza suit.

Among their arguments to dismiss the case:

     -- All of Simpson's claims--attempting to ban artificial
trans fatty acids in 25 frozen pizza products made under CPK and
Nestle marks--are pre-empted by the FDA and federal meat and
poultry inspection rules.

     -- Simpson's case is a matter that the FDA and USDA should
decide, and not a federal court, and the use of trans fats in food
products is lawful.

     -- Her "public nuisance claim" doesn't allege any special
injury to herself and she can't properly sue over "products she
never purchased."


CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Remains Pending in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137, was filed August 17, 2007, by five plaintiffs
against current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison,
Indiana, including Carriage Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries that
owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on
behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods
and services at Grandview Cemetery.  The Plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed
burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the
Company owned the cemetery.  On October 15, 2007, the case was
removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the
Southern District of Indiana.  On April 24, 2009, shortly before
the Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the
Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class
representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other
claims.  The Company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed
the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties.
In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify the Plaintiffs'
counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action.  On
June 30, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
disqualify the Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that order, the Court gave
the Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain new counsel.

On May 6, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief
from the trial court's order of disqualification of counsel.  On
May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of
mandamus.  On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs'
petition for writ of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the trial
court's order, the Plaintiffs were given 60 days from
July 8, 2010, in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this
action on their behalf.  The Plaintiffs retained new counsel and
the trial court granted the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel
90 days to review the case and advise the Court whether or not
Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend their complaint to add and/or
change the allegations as are currently stated therein and whether
or not they would seek leave to amend the proposed class
representatives for class certification.  The Plaintiffs moved for
leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations
stated within the complaint.  The Defendants filed oppositions to
such amendments.  The Court issued an order permitting the
Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class representatives and
a portion of their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims
have been dismissed.  Discovery in this matter will now proceed.

The Company says it intends to defend this action vigorously.
Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to it
or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any,
at this time.

Carriage Services, Inc. -- http://www.carriageservices.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in 1993 and is based in Houston, Texas.
The Company is a provider of death care services and merchandise
in the United States, such as funeral and cemetery services and
products on both an "at-need" (time of death) and "preneed"
(planned prior to death) basis.


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
HR.BLR.com reports that a group of workers filed a class action
lawsuit against Catholic Health System (CHS) of Long Island
claiming employees routinely put in extra hours and worked through
breaks without pay.  Did the hospital owe them back wages?

What happened.  "Jason" worked for CHS between 22.5 and 30 hours
per week as a respiratory therapist.  "Amy," a nurse, usually
worked 37.5 hours per week in three shifts, while "Victoria," also
a nurse, usually worked 30 hours per week in four shifts.  The
three claimed CHS's timekeeping system automatically deducted
breaks from their paychecks, even though their meal breaks were
"typically" missed or interrupted.

In addition, Jason said he had to arrive early and stay after his
shift to exchange instructions with fellow staff, while Amy and
Victoria claimed they spent 15 to 30 minutes before their shifts
preparing their assignments.

Meanwhile, the nurses attended mandatory 30-minute staff meetings
each month, while Jason estimated that he spent 10 hours per year
in specialized training.  They sought pay for unpaid overtime
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York
Labor Law (NYLL).

Despite direct requests from the district court for "more factual
detail" regarding the plaintiffs' schedules and alleged unpaid
hours, the workers failed to submit sufficient evidence to
establish an FLSA claim.  In addition, the court noted that the
FLSA requires only payment of minimum wages and overtime wages,
not wages for "gap-time" hours that fall under the 40-hour
threshold.  Their case was dismissed, and the workers appealed.

What the court said.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, affirmed that the
workers failed to submit "sufficient factual matter to state a
plausible claim."  The court noted that Amy, who worked the most
hours of any of the plaintiffs, "has not alleged that she ever
completely missed all three meal breaks in a week, or that she
also worked a full 15 minutes of uncompensated time around every
shift; but even if she did, she would have alleged a total 39
hours and 45 minutes worked."

The court affirmed that "[s]o long as an employee is being paid
the minimum wage or more, FLSA does not provide recourse for
unpaid hours below the 40-hour threshold, even if the employee
also works overtime hours the same week."

Because the NYLL does recognize gap-time claims, however, the
circuit court remanded the case only "in that narrow respect" back
to district court.  Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island
Inc., 2nd Cir., No. 12-1453 (3/1/2013).

Point to remember.  Work performed during meal breaks or before
and after shifts may be compensable under the FLSA if it exceeds
40 hours per week.


CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
lawsuit captioned Jane Simpson, et al. v. Citizens Bank, U.S.
District Court Case No. 2:12-cv-10267, is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In the first quarter of 2012, putative class action litigation was
filed against the Bank and the Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and in Genesee
County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan, relating to the
Bank's practices in posting debit card transactions to customers'
deposit accounts. The class of plaintiffs, which purports to
constitute substantially all of the Bank's customers during the
class period, alleges that the Bank improperly reordered debit
card transactions from the highest amount to lowest amount before
processing these transactions in order to generate unwarranted
overdraft fees. Plaintiffs contend that the Bank should have
processed such transactions in the chronological order they were
authorized or from lowest to highest, and seek restitution for the
fees they claim were wrongly charged as well as a declaratory
judgment and attorney fees. The state court action was stayed, and
the same lead plaintiff then filed suit in federal court. During
the second quarter of 2012, the two federal cases were
consolidated into one case pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the caption Jane
Simpson, et al. v. Citizens Bank, U.S. District Court Case No.
2:12-cv-10267, while the state court action was dismissed.
Citizens has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated federal
action, which motion is currently pending.

This litigation is still in its early stages and there can be no
assurance that the outcome will not be adverse to Citizens.
However, based on the information currently known, Citizens does
not believe the resolution of this litigation will have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or
financial condition.


CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Awaits Court Okay of MOU in Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
memorandum of agreement settling a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed by alleged shareholders, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuit
in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, which have been
consolidated as In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit"). The consolidated
complaint (the "Complaint") names as defendants Citizens, each of
the current members of Citizens' board of directors and
FirstMerit. It alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best available price in
connection with the merger, by not utilizing a proper process to
evaluate the merger and by agreeing to protective devices that
ensure that no entity other than FirstMerit will seek to acquire
Citizens. The Complaint also alleges that FirstMerit and Citizens
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable
relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.

On February 21, 2013, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") setting forth their
agreement in principle to settle the Lawsuit. While the defendants
deny the allegations made in the Complaint, they have agreed to
enter into the MOU to avoid the costs and disruptions of any
further litigation and to permit the timely closing of the Merger.
The MOU describes the terms that the parties have agreed to
include in the final settlement agreement concerning the Complaint
(the "Settlement Agreement"), subject to confirmatory discovery by
the plaintiffs, and describes the actions that the parties will
take or refrain from taking between the date of the MOU and the
date that the Settlement Agreement is finally approved.

The MOU, among other things, provided that the Defendants would
amend the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on February 21,
2013, to include the supplemental disclosures contained in the
MOU. The MOU also provides that the Settlement Agreement will
include an injunction against proceedings in connection with the
Complaint and any additional complaints concerning claims that
will be covered by the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the MOU
provides that the Settlement Agreement will include a release on
behalf of the plaintiffs, along with other members of the class of
Citizens' shareholders certified for purposes of the Settlement
Agreement, in favor of the defendants and their related parties
from any claims that arose from or are related to the Merger. The
Defendants have agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses as awarded by the court, subject to court approval of the
Settlement Agreement and the consummation of the Merger.


COMCAST CORP: Judge Won't Certify Employee Suit v. Cable Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Richard Jones of the Western District of Washington on
April 17 rejected the request that he certify claims made by two
plaintiffs, Karen Ginsburg and Jessica Walker, on behalf of more
than 2,000 customer account executives who have worked at Comcast
Cable Communications Management facilities in the state since
2007.

The ruling is "another good example" how the Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Supreme Court decision from 2010 on class action certification is
being applied in the wage-and-hour context, said Theodore Boutrous
of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who represented Wal-Mart in that case.
The ruling has wider importance because wage-and-hour cases
constitute "an exploding area of class action litigation,"
Boutrous said.

The high court made it clear in the Wal-Mart case that claims by
plaintiffs need to have various elements in common for them to be
certified as a class action. In the Washington case, Judge Jones
said the plaintiffs had failed to overcome that barrier.

The plaintiffs, who are hourly workers, claimed they were required
to arrive at work early to perform unpaid preliminary tasks.
Consequently, Comcast violated the Washington Minimum Wage Act and
other state wage-and-hour laws, the plaintiffs argued.

In declining to certify a class, Jones focused on the so-called
"commonality requirement" that is needed for certification.

Jones said that while the plaintiffs had shown that employees were
under "systemic pressure" to maximize the time talking to
customers, they did not show that "common issues predominate."

The evidence indicated there was no single way in which managers
put pressure on employees, Jones noted. Some employees said they
were specifically instructed to arrive at work before their shifts
began, while others said they were told to be ready to take calls
after a paid five-minute "preshift" period.

'MISPLACED RELIANCE'

Comcast countered with its own evidence in which 50 employees said
they were explicitly told not to work off the clock.

Jones noted that "individualized questions abound" in the case,
all of which swung the certification question in Comcast's favor.

In that light, the judge concluded that "the legal and factual
questions common to class members do not predominate over
questions affecting only individual class members."

In seeking certification, the plaintiffs' lawyers, led by Andrew
Ficzko of Stephan Zouras in Chicago, had cited three other federal
cases in which judges had certified similar claims. Ficzko could
not be reached for comment.  But Comcast's lead lawyer, Jeff
Hollingsworth of Perkins Coie in Seattle, said in the company's
response that the plaintiffs had a "misplaced reliance" on the
other cases.

"These cases were brought under different state and federal laws,
covering different periods of time and involving other Comcast
regions," Hollingsworth wrote. He could not be reached for
comment.

Jones agreed with Comcast, noting that two of the cases, one each
in Maryland and North Dakota, involved federal claims brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for which there is a lower bar
to certifying what is known as a "collective action," which is
similar to a class action.

While the allegations in the other cases were analogous, "the
evidence underlying them differs from the evidence before the
court, as does the legal framework," Jones wrote.

The lawsuit was originally filed in state court, but Comcast
removed it to federal court after citing the Class Action Fairness
Act, a 2005 law that allows companies to move class actions into
federal courts under certain conditions.

Plaintiffs generally prefer to stay out of federal court, seeing
state courts as being potentially more receptive to their claims.

The case is Ginsburg v. Comcast Cable Communications Management,
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No.
2:11-cv-01959.

For plaintiffs: Andrew Ficzko, James Zouras and Ryan Stephan of
Stephan Zouras; Beth Terrell, Erica Nusser and Jennifer Murray --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com enusser@tmdwlaw.com and jmurray@tmdwlaw.com
-- of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie.

For Comcast: Jeffrey Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen
and Emily Bushaw -- JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com
CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com and EBushaw@perkinscoie.com -- of
Perkins Coie.


EASYHOME LTD: June 10 Hearing to Approve C$2.25MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is directed to all persons and entities, wherever
they may reside or be domiciled who acquired shares of easyhome
Ltd. ("easyhome") during the period from April 8, 2008 through
October 14, 2010 ("Class Members"), other than Excluded Persons
(certain persons and entities related to easyhome and or its
current or past directors and officers).

In October 2010, the Plaintiff Andrew Sorensen commenced a class
proceeding against easyhome and certain of easyhome's officers and
directors (the "Defendants") in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (the "Court"). The class action claims arises out of
easyhome's announcement of its discovery of an employee fraud
which required the company to restate certain of its financial
statements for the period during which the fraud happened.
Following this announcement, easyhome's share price declined
significantly. On March 26, 2012, the Court certified this
proceeding as a class action on consent. Certification by the
Court is not a decision on the merits of the class action.

On February 19, 2013 the parties to the class action executed a
Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement"). The Settlement is subject
to the approval of the Court. The Settlement provides for the
payment of CAD$2,250,000.00 (the "Settlement Amount") in
consideration for full and final settlement of the claims of Class
Members. The Settlement Amount includes all legal fees,
disbursements, taxes and administration expenses. In return for
the Settlement Amount, the Defendants will receive releases and a
dismissal of the class action. The Settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing
or fault on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have
denied, and continue to deny, the allegations against them.

A complete copy of the Settlement is available on the website of
Class Counsel at http://www.classaction.ca/

A Settlement Approval Motion Will Be Held in Toronto, Ontario

The Settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be
implemented. Class Members may, but are not required to, attend at
the settlement approval hearing which will be held on June 10,
2013 at 10:00 am, at the Toronto Courthouse, 130 Queen St West,
Toronto, Ontario.

If the Settlement is approved, another notice to Class Members
will be published which will provide instructions on how to make a
claim to receive compensation from the Settlement and how to opt
out of the class if the Class Member does not wish to share in, or
be bound by, the Settlement.

Class Members who approve of or do not oppose the Settlement do
not need to appear at the Approval Motion or take any other action
at this time.

In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the Settlement,
Siskinds LLP will seek the Court's approval of its legal fees not
to exceed 25% of the Settlement Amount, plus disbursements and
applicable taxes ("Class Counsel Fees") at the Approval Motion.
Siskinds LLP will also seek the appointment of an Administrator
for the Settlement whose fees, together with any other costs
relating to approval, notification, implementation and
administration of the Settlement ("Administration Expenses"), will
be paid from the Settlement Amount. Class Counsel Fees and
Administration Expenses will be deducted from the Settlement
Amount before it is distributed to Class Members.

Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class Counsel Fees and
Administration Expenses (the "Net Settlement Amount"), will be
distributed to Class Members in accordance with the Plan of
Allocation which is also subject to Court approval.

The amount of each Class Member's actual compensation from the Net
Settlement Amount will depend upon: (i) the number and the price
of easyhome shares purchased by the Class Member during the Class
Period; (ii) if and when the Class Member sold the easyhome shares
purchased during the Class Period and the price at which such
shares were sold; (iii) whether the Class Member continues to hold
some or all of their easyhome shares purchased during the Class
Period; and (iv) the total number and value of claims for
compensation filed with the Administrator and their value. It is
therefore not possible to predict what any individual Class
Member's share of the Net Settlement Amount will be.

If the settlement is approved and not terminated, the settlement
funds will be distributed as described above. If there is a
remainder after the Net Settlement Amount is distributed, it will
be donated ("cypres") to a charity. The proposed recipient is FAIR
Canada, an investor rights organization.

Copies of the Settlement and the proposed Plan of Allocation may
be found at www.classaction.ca or by contacting Siskinds LLP at
the contact information provided below.

Participation in the Settlement May Affect Other Actions Commenced
by Class Members

If the Court approves the Settlement, all Class Members will be
bound by its terms, unless they validly exclude themselves from
the Class ("opt out"). This means that if they do not opt out,
they may participate in the Settlement by filing a proper claim
but will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal
proceeding against the Defendants or any other person released by
the Settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class
action. If the Settlement is approved, a notice explaining the
process by which a Class Member can opt out, and the consequences
thereof, will be published.

Class Members May Object to the Settlement

Class Members who wish to comment on or object to the Settlement
should do so in writing. All objections should be received by
Siskinds LLP (at the address listed below) no later than May 22,
2013. Siskinds LLP will file all such submissions with the Court.
You may attend at the settlement approval hearing whether or not
you deliver an objection. The Court may permit you to participate
in the Approval Motion whether or not you deliver an objection.

A written objection should use the heading "easyhome Ltd.
Securities Class Action", and should include: (i) the Class
Member's name, address, telephone number, fax number (where
applicable) and email address; (ii) a brief statement outlining
the nature of, and reasons for, the objection; and (iii) a
statement as to whether the objector intends to appear at the
Approval Motion in person or through a lawyer and, if through a
lawyer, the name, address, telephone number, fax number and email
address of the lawyer.

Questions related to this Notice should NOT be addressed to the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Siskinds LLP
Nicole Young
519-660-6065
1-877-672-2121 x 2380
E-mail: nicole.young@siskinds.com

Siskinds LLP
680 Waterloo Street
London, ON N6A 3V8
http://www.classaction.ca/


ELECTRONIC ARTS: June Trial Set for Madden NFL Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Electronic Arts faces a
June trial in a case brought by a former college football player
who claims that EA's employees copied his source code to develop
the company's successful Madden NFL football video games.  Robin
Antonick, who developed the first version of the game in the
1980s, alleges the company breached its 1986 contract with him by
using his intellectual property without his permission.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals Court Tosses Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court has thrown out a $45 million class action settlement
that was meant to resolve allegations that the three largest U.S.
credit-reporting agencies issued incorrect reports about consumers
who had gone through bankruptcy.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California said $5,000
incentive awards for class representatives were improperly
conditioned on the representatives' support for the accord and
were too high relative to what many class members would receive.

Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Systems
Inc. and TransUnion LLC had been accused of issuing credit reports
that said consumers were delinquent in making payments on debts
that had actually been discharged in bankruptcy, violating the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

About 770,000 consumers submitted claims.  Roughly 15,000 who
showed they were denied employment, mortgages, housing rentals, or
credit or auto loans because of the errors were to recover $150 to
$750 each, and the rest were to recover $26 each.

U.S. District Judge David Carter in Santa Ana, California,
approved the settlement and an award of about $16.7 million of
legal fees in July 2011, court records show.

But the 9th Circuit agreed with some objecting plaintiffs that the
settlement was not fair, reasonable and adequate.  It said that
unlike earlier settlements with incentive awards that had won
court approval, this settlement created a "patent divergence of
interests" between class representatives and the people they
represented.

"The conditional incentive awards removed a critical check on the
fairness of the class-action settlement, which rests on the
unbiased judgment of class representatives similarly situated to
absent class members," Circuit Judge Ronald Gould wrote for a
three-judge panel.

The 9th Circuit also said lawyers for the class members could not
represent the class because they would simultaneously be
representing clients with conflicting interests.  It returned the
case to Carter for further proceedings.

Michael Caddell, a partner at Caddell & Chpman representing the
plaintiffs, said he plans to redraft the settlement, which he
called the second-largest ever obtained under the FCRA, and
resubmit it to Carter for approval.

"Obviously we're disappointed," he said.  "We didn't believe the
settlement agreement was coercive, and the facts were undisputed
that our class representatives had decided months before the
language was drafted to support it."

Lawyers who argued the appeal on behalf of the credit reporting
agencies and the objecting plaintiffs did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.

The case is Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions Inc, 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-56376.

For plaintiffs: Michael Caddell of Caddell & Chapman.

For objecting plaintiffs: George Carpinello --
gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- of Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

For Equifax: Cindy Hanson -- Chanson@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton

For Experian: Daniel McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com -- of Jones
Day

For TransUnion: Julia Strickland of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan


HAWAII SCHOOL FOR DEAF & BLIND: $5.75MM Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a $5.75 million settlement has
been approved in a class-action lawsuit alleging bullying, assault
and rape at the Hawaii School for the Deaf and the Blind.

A federal judge in Honolulu approved the settlement on April 22.

The suit filed in 2011 claimed school officials knew about the
alleged acts and did nothing.  Attorney for the plaintiffs Michael
Green says the allegations date back to 2001.  It's the only
public school in the state for deaf and blind students.

Hawaii attorney general spokeswoman Anne Lopez says the education
department has new policies and procedures to ensure the safety
and security of the students.  She says the state will pay $5
million and $750,000 is being paid by an insurance carrier.

About $1 million will go to the plaintiffs' attorneys.


HOME DEPOT: Workers' Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., issued a remand
order in the lawsuit captioned SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT
U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN BROOKS, an individual;
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:12-cv-02499-
GEB-CKD, (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs have sought an order remanding this putative class
action to the Superior Court of the State of California from which
it was removed, arguing that removal jurisdiction, which is based
on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), is lacking since
the removing party, Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., has not
shown CAFA's $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement is met.

The Defendants oppose the motion, arguing, "given the various
[state law] wage and hour claims in the Complaint, Plaintiffs'
allegations that such violations were systemic, and the data
provided by Home Depot here and in its removal papers, it is clear
that plaintiffs' claims place more than $5 million in
controversy."

However, Judge Burell concluded that the Defendants have not
proffered concrete evidence to support their estimations and
assumptions, and therefore, have not met their burden to establish
jurisdiction under CAFA.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand is granted, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court
of the State of California in the County of Sacramento, from which
it was removed, and the action will be closed, Judge Burell said.

A copy of the District Court's April 25, 2013 Remand Order is
available at http://is.gd/WRobB0from Leagle.com.


LA LAKERS: Fan's Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that the Los Angeles
Lakers scored a dismissal on April 18 of a ticket holder's
putative class action accusing the basketball franchise of sending
him unsolicited text messages.  California federal judge George H.
Wu ruled in a five-page ruling that a consumer protection law
didn't apply because the plaintiff, David M. Emanuel, voluntarily
gave the team his number.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Reconsideration Bid Ruling in IPO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is awaiting a court
decision on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in the class
action lawsuit arising from FriendFinder Networks, Inc.'s initial
public offering, according to the Company's March 18, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against FriendFinder Networks, Inc. ("FriendFinder"), various
individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters
for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder initial public offering.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are
liable for violations of federal securities laws. On November 15,
2012, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to replead on specified grounds; the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that order is currently
pending.  The Company believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. --
http://www.ladenburg.com/-- is engaged in independent brokerage
and advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services and
trust services through its principal subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is facing a class
action lawsuit initiated in California, according to the Company's
March 18, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In December 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent of a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities.  The complaint alleges that the defendants,
including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securities
laws relating to purported failure to disclose certain agreements.
An amended complaint was filed in February 2013; the amount of
damages sought is unspecified.  The Company believes the claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. --
http://www.ladenburg.com/-- is engaged in independent brokerage
and advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services and
trust services through its principal subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Awaits OK of HQS IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is still awaiting court
approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from
HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc.'s 2009 and 2010
offerings, according to the Company's March 18, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. ("HQS"), various
individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters
of 2009 and 2010 offerings of HQS common stock.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are liable for
violations of federal securities laws.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages.  On September 28, 2012, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement, which is pending court approval.  The
stipulated settlement provides for no contribution from Ladenburg.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. --
http://www.ladenburg.com/-- is engaged in independent brokerage
and advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services and
trust services through its principal subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION: Judge Allows Discrimination Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that a federal judge gave the green light on
April 22 to a lawsuit against the Law School Admission Council
over alleged discrimination against test takers who requested
accommodation for disabilities when sitting for the LSAT.  The
judge classified the suit, brought by California's Department of
Fair Employment and Housing, as a government enforcement action
exempt from class certification requirements.


METRO NASHVILLE PUBLIC: Facing Class Suit to Keep School Open
-------------------------------------------------------------
News Channel 5 reported that Smithson Craighead Middle School is
supposed to close this month, but students, parents and staff have
fought to keep it open.  In April, they filed a class action
lawsuit against Metro Nashville Public Schools after the school
board voted to shut down the charter school after years of low
test scores.

In November, the school board voted 8 to 1 to close Smithson-
Craighead Middle at the end of the school year because of
consistently low test scores as well as decline in enrollment. The
charter school is designated as one of the lowest performing in
the state.  Now, staff has joined a class action lawsuit against
Metro Schools to keep Smithson Craighead open. The lawsuit also
seeks damages exceeding $100,000 that parents could collect.

Metro Schools plan to send the students to better schools in the
district starting next year.  A statement from Metro Schools reads
in part: "The Board of Education is committed to approving high-
performing charter schools and to closing those that do not
perform. The Tennessee Department of Education supports this
approach. In voting to close Smithson-Craighead, the Board of
Education fulfilled its obligation to the children and the
community consistent with State law. The district expects to
prevail in this matter."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: June 20 Class Action Certification Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Grasgreen, writing for Insider Higher Ed, reports that it
could be five years until the massive class action lawsuit by
current and former players against the National Collegiate
Athletic Association draws to a close.  But neither that nor the
lack of legal precedent has stopped anyone from speculating about
the potentially revolutionary effects the case could have on the
NCAA.

"It is a game-changer -- it has the capacity of changing the way
college athletics are run," Michael McCann, director of the Sports
and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New
Hampshire, said on April 19.  The panel discussion at the annual
conference of the University of North Carolina's College Sport
Research Institute got heated at times, with a university
president and former enforcement official clashing over the often
emotionally charged issue.

The antitrust lawsuit, filed by the former University of
California at Los Angeles basketball player Ed O'Bannon in 2009,
argues that athletes should receive a share of the revenue
generated off their "likeness" -- their image or an image implying
a given athlete, such as a video game avatar with a specific
jersey color and number.  If the NCAA loses, universities and
anyone else who earn revenue through college sports --
conferences, television networks, video game companies -- would
have to share some of that money with athletes.

The NCAA maintains that payments to athletes would violate its
"bedrock principle" of amateurism, which the NCAA says protects
athletes from commercialism.  A recent report said that that
defense, as well as the assertion that sharing revenue would be
financially catastrophic for institutions, is not tenable.
Critics take issue with colleges spending millions on coaches and
amenities while athletic scholarships in many cases don't cover
the athletes' full cost of attending college.

Before becoming eligible to play in college, athletes are required
to sign an agreement waiving their rights of publicity and profit
off their image.  That's why, for example, the University of
Minnesota's Joel Bauman was declared ineligible and lost his
scholarship for recording original music and posting it on YouTube
and iTunes.

Mr. McCann questioned why antitrust law wouldn't apply in a case
in which institutions, through the NCAA, band together to prevent
athletes from being compensated for their labor.

"Law would call that a contract of adhesion," he said.  "You can
sign this or not -- the 'not,' though, is a pretty dire outcome
for a 17-year-old."

The O'Bannon vs. NCAA certification hearing -- which will
determine whether the lawsuit can proceed -- is scheduled for June
20.  If it moves forward, the NCAA will likely seek a settlement
because it's not certain that the association is at an advantage
and antitrust lawsuits also end in settlement, experts said. And
if a settlement is not reached and the association loses, it will
almost certainly appeal.  That means it will probably be three to
five years before the case comes to a close, Mr. McCann said.

While most of the panelists -- which included a lawyer, a
university president, and a coach and former athlete, among others
-- agreed that O'Bannon has a good shot at winning, the exchange
grew heated when they discussed what that would mean and whether
that would be the right outcome.  As conversation about the
lawsuit often does, it turned to whether college athletes "should"
be paid.

Robert F. Orr, an adjunct law professor at UNC and former
associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, called the
NCAA's rules "one of the heights of hypocrisy."

"It's not just a question about compensating student-athletes," he
said.  "At a minimum, we should stop punishing these men and women
because somebody buys them dinner, or a suit if they don't have a
suit, or a room at a hotel."

Harvey Perlman, the University of Nebraska at Lincoln chancellor
who recently served on the NCAA Board of Directors and chaired the
Bowl Championship Series Oversight Committee, agreed and said that
although the enforcement rules "are difficult and need attention,"
a loss in the lawsuit would not significantly change how the NCAA
operates.  Universities would continue to benefit off athletes'
likenesses, he said, and while the NCAA could wind up having to
make big payouts, there are ways to structure it that wouldn't
kill the NCAA or require athletes to get a bunch of money.

"There is a certain crapshoot in every litigation," Mr. Perlman
said. "Whether this is in fact a game-changer, I don't think it
is."

One possibility, Mr. McCann said, is a trust fund that athletes
would draw from once they graduate.

"Forget due process, forget some legal theory; we're talking about
just fundamental fairness of who generates the revenue and who
gets the revenue," said David Thompson, a former NCAA enforcement
investigator and assistant commissioner for enforcement for the
Atlantic Coast Conference.

But he and Mr. Perlman, who was off-site and joined via telephone,
sparred a bit over whether "fairness" is even an issue.

"If you're going to start paying players and making this
professional, then I don't think it can be defended that this
ought to be within the context of higher education," Mr. Perlman
said.  "The fact that [University of Alabama head football coach]
Nick Saban makes $6 million I think is an outrage, but that
doesn't have anything to do with whether you pay athletes."

Regardless, Mr. Orr pointed to signs that the NCAA is "clearly
worried," most notably Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim
Delany's saying that his institutions would move to Division III
if the NCAA loses, and Wake Forest University President Nathan
Hatch (who is also chair of the Division I Board of Directors)
saying his institution would have to forgo all nonrevenue sports.

"It's the public relations campaign that the NCAA is mounting,
trying to -- I think -- influence the court's decision on this by
threatening economic calamity," Mr. Orr said.  "No matter how long
the litigation goes, it will have a significant impact, but I
don't know that in and of itself it's going to restructure college
athletics."


NETFLIX INC: In Dispute With Plaintiffs Over Attorney Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that in dueling
briefs, lawyers for plaintiff Donald Cullen and for Los Gatos-
based Netflix Inc. argued they technically prevailed in a
disability rights class action against Netflix over closed
captioning for the deaf, and should recover attorney fees.

Cullen, a deaf college student represented by San Diego-based
Gregory Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com -- of The Weston Firm,
sought fees of $262,641. Meanwhile, Netflix, which boasts annual
revenues topping $3 billion, claimed it should receive $165,000
from Cullen to pay lawyers from the Los Angeles office of Morrison
& Foerster.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, who presided over the San Jose
case, weighed in late Wednesday afternoon, May 1, concluding
neither Cullen nor Netflix could be considered a prevailing party
and denying both motions.

Still, the cockeyed fee dispute between a disabled plaintiff and a
publicly traded company could repeat itself under a 2012
California Supreme Court decision mandating attorney fees for
prevailing parties in disability access suits brought under state
law.  Both sides cited the ruling in Jankey v. Lee, 55 Cal.4th
1038, to support their bid. In his ruling, Davila reasoned that
Jankey could not apply unless he designated a prevailing party
Cullen's lawyer called the effort by Netflix "unconscionable."

"I'm really surprised Morrison & Foerster would do something like
that," Weston said in an interview prior to Davila's order.

Netflix lead lawyer David McDowell, a MoFo partner who specializes
in class action defense, was not cowed.

"[Cullen] and his lawyers were looking for a large financial
recovery. To say therefore Netflix should be denied what the
statute entitles it to, doesn't seem consistent," McDowell said.
"If this was really an issue for him or his lawyers, they could
have just pursued injunctive relief and not had this risk."

Cullen sued Netflix in March 2011, claiming discrimination under
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California's
Disabled Persons and Unruh Civil Rights Acts and also accusing
Netflix of false advertising in statements about the availability
of closed captioning.

In June 2011 the National Association of the Deaf, or NAD, filed a
similar action against Netflix under the ADA in Massachusetts and
obtained a consent decree requiring full captioning for all
streaming video content by September 2014. Netflix also agreed to
pay the association's attorneys fees of $775,000.

Prior to the settlement, Cullen voluntarily dropped his ADA claims
and refiled the suit under more stringent and punitive state laws.
In court briefs, Cullen's lawyers said that decision was made in
consultation with the NAD, with the understanding the association
would pursue the ADA claims.

Cullen's state disability claims were dismissed in July 2012 with
leave to amend, and Davila tossed Cullen's third amended complaint
in January with prejudice.

Despite those dismissals, Cullen's lawyers argued he should be
considered the prevailing party because the suit achieved its main
objective.

"On a 'practical level' Mr. Cullen obtained exactly what his
lawsuit sought: Netflix's commitment -- indeed, legal obligation
-- to caption its entire streaming video library," Weston wrote.

Attorneys for Netflix took a different view, insisting Cullen and
his lawyers should receive no credit for the settlement, which
resulted from negotiations with the NAD that began prior to Cullen
filing suit.

"Cullen had nothing to do with the NAD action consent decree. He
was not a party to the consent decree, he did not participate in
its negotiation, and did not even file a lawsuit until after NAD
initiated litigation," McDowell wrote in a brief opposing Cullen's
fee request. "His action was not a 'catalyst' and does not entitle
him to recover fees."

Davila bought both sides arguments. He concluded Cullen had not
shown his suit played a role in the NAD settlement. However, he
also determined that Netflix could not be considered a prevailing
party since Cullen's discrimination claims were not frivolous and
had been dismissed without prejudice.

State law provides mandatory fee shifting for certain claims under
California's Disabled Persons Act. The provision states the
prevailing party "shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorney's fees."

In Jankey, the California Supreme Court held the language applies
to defendants just as to plaintiffs, even in cases that
simultaneously pursue remedies under the ADA. The court pointed
out that plaintiffs could sue under the ADA only and forgo state
law claims if they were concerned about subjecting themselves to
potential fee awards.

According to its filings, Netflix had sought roughly half of its
total attorney fees -- the amount "incurred in its successful
defense of the state disability access claims."

Cullen's lawyers contended the mandatory fee-shifting provision
would not apply to cases pleaded as class actions under a
California appeal court ruling in Turner v. Association of Medical
Colleges, 193 Cal.App.4th 1047. Davila did not address that
argument. Speaking before Davila's ruling, Michael Caesar, a
litigation fellow at the Impact Fund in Berkeley, said the issue
should be taken up by the California Legislature. His group filed
an amicus curiae brief in Jankey arguing the ADA's heightened
standards for fee shifting should pre-empt state law.

"Clearly, something like this could potentially have a chilling
effect on plaintiffs," Caesar said. "I don't think lawmakers
anticipated scenarios in which megabillion-dollar companies are
moving for fee awards against individual disabled plaintiffs."


NORTHWEST PIPE: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipe Company is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's March 18, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On November 20, 2009, a complaint against the Company, captioned
Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL
("Richard"), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  The plaintiff is allegedly a
purchaser of the Company's stock.  In addition to the Company,
Brian W. Dunham, the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Stephanie J. Welty, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, are named as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading statements
between April 23, 2008 and November 11, 2009, subsequently
extended to December 22, 2011 (the "Class Period").  The Plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
stock during the same period, and seeks damages for losses caused
by the alleged wrongdoing.

A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et
al., No. C09-5791 RBL ("Plumbers"), was filed against the Company
in the same court on December 22, 2009.  In addition to the
Company, Brian W. Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R.
Tagmyer, the Company's Chairman of the Board, are named as
defendants in the Plumbers complaint.  In the Plumbers complaint,
as in the Richard complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a
purchaser of the Company's stock and asserts that defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false or misleading statements during the Class Period.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased
the Company's stock during that period, and seeks damages for
losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on
February 25, 2010.  Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed
by the plaintiff on December 21, 2010, and the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on February 25, 2011, as were similar motions
filed by the individual defendants.  On August 26, 2011, the Court
denied all defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Company filed
its answer to the consolidated amended complaint on October 24,
2011.  The parties participated in an initial settlement mediation
on January 30, 2012.  On July 19, 2012, the parties participated
in a second settlement mediation at which the parties agreed,
subject to court approval, to settle all of the plaintiff's claims
for $12.5 million.  All of this amount will be paid by the
Company's insurers with the exception of $200,000 in retention
which was expensed in the second quarter of 2010 and $200,000
which was expensed in the second quarter of 2012.  The full
settlement amount has been placed into escrow.  On November 27,
2012, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the class
action settlement and setting a settlement hearing for final
approval on March 22, 2013.

Northwest Pipe Company -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a North
American manufacturer of large-diameter, high-pressure steel
pipeline systems for use in water infrastructure applications,
primarily related to drinking water systems.  The Company also
manufactures other welded steel pipe products for use in a wide
range of applications, including energy, construction,
agriculture, and industrial systems.  The Company's pipeline
systems are also used for hydroelectric power systems, wastewater
systems and other applications, and the Company makes products for
industrial plant piping systems and certain structural
applications.


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Filing of Accord in Merger Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. awaits the filing of a
settlement resolving a merger-related shareholder litigation
against its subsidiary, according to the Company's March 18, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of California County of San Diego by Daniele Riganello, who, prior
to the consummation of the merger between Pernix and Somaxon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on March 6, 2013 (the "Merger"), was an
alleged stockholder of Somaxon  (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No.
37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  A second purported class action was
also filed in the court by another alleged stockholder
(Wasserstrom vs. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL).
Both plaintiffs filed amended complaints on January 18, 2013.  The
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case
No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  The operative complaint named as
defendants Somaxon, Pernix, Pernix Acquisition Corp. I, as well as
each of the former members of Somaxon's board of directors (the
"Individual Defendants").  It alleged, among other things, that
(i) the Individual Defendants  breached fiduciary duties they
allegedly owed to Somaxon's former stockholders in connection with
the Merger (ii) Somaxon and Pernix aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the merger consideration was
unfair and inadequate; and (iv) the disclosures regarding the
Merger in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, initially filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2013
(the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), were inadequate.

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants in
such litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
to settle such litigation.  Subject to the completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, which the
Company anticipates to be completed by the end of April 2013, as
well as court approval and further definitive documentation in a
stipulation of settlement, the MOU resolves the claims brought in
such litigation and provides a release and settlement by the
purported class of Somaxon's former stockholders of all claims
against the defendants and their affiliates and agents in
connection with the Merger.  The asserted claims will not be
released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the
court.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the MOU,
Pernix made certain additional disclosures related to the Merger
in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.  Finally, in connection with
the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs in such litigation intend
to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to
be approved or determined by the court.

Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.pernixtx.com/--
is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the sales,
marketing, manufacturing and development of branded, generic and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical products for pediatric and adult
indications in a variety of therapeutic areas.  The Company is
headquartered in Woodlands, Texas.


PHILIP MORRIS: Questions Certified in Medical Monitoring Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that the New York Court of Appeals
has been asked to decide whether current or former long-term
smokers who have no sign of disease can pursue an equitable action
to obtain medical monitoring against Philip Morris under New York
law.  The Second Circuit on May 1 certified two questions to New
York's highest court, asking it for a clear statement on whether
it recognizes an independent cause of action for monitoring.


PHILLIPS AGENCY: Fisher & Phillips Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Simpson, Esq., at Fisher & Phillips reports that in Farmer
v. The Phillips Agency, 285 F.R.D. 685 (N.D. Ga. 2012), the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a
plaintiff's motion to certify a class action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) consisting of all individuals who had been
the subject of an adverse criminal background report, whether
accurate or inaccurate, generated by the defendant, The Phillips
Agency.

In doing so, the Northern District of Georgia became the first
court to explicitly state that a plaintiff bringing claims under
Section 1681k(a)(2) of the FCRA must establish that the underlying
consumer report was not "complete and up to date."  The court's
decision not only clarifies the essential elements of a cause of
action under Section 1681k(a)(2), but it also makes it
considerably more difficult for plaintiffs to certify class
actions under the provision going forward.

The Farmer decision not only clarifies the essential elements of a
claim under Section 1681k(a)(2) of the FCRA, but it also makes it
virtually impossible to establish a class action under Section
1681k going forward.  Whereas plaintiffs previously relied on the
supposed uniformity of a consumer reporting agency's procedures
alone to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification standards,
they can no longer do so.

Under Farmer, the parties must instead conduct "a highly
individualized inquiry into the content of each consumer's report
in order to determine if the adverse information is complete and
up to date."  In almost every instance, this will prevent
plaintiffs from satisfying the typicality and predominance
requirements necessary to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23.

While future plaintiffs may try to avoid the consequences of the
Farmer decision by asserting class claims under Section
1681k(a)(1), rather than 1681k(a)(2), such artful pleading should
not impact the underlying analysis.  Indeed, a consumer reporting
agency does not have to comply with the notice requirement in
Section 1681k(a)(1) if it maintains strict procedures as set forth
in Section 1681k(a)(2).

Accordingly, consumer reporting agencies should be able to
successfully oppose class allegations under Section 1681k(a)(1) by
arguing that they are in compliance with Section 1681k(a)(2), thus
triggering the individualized inquiry into Section 1681k(a)(2)'s
accuracy requirements and rendering the allegations unsuitable for
class treatment.

Given these implications, the effects of the Farmer decision will
likely be felt well outside the Northern District of Georgia and,
in the absence of any contrary authority, restrict plaintiffs'
ability to maintain class action lawsuits under Section 1681k of
the FCRA.


PHOENIX COS: Facing Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut against The Phoenix
Companies, Inc. (NYSE: PNX), on April 17, 2013.  The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
including allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is May 5, 2009 through November 6, 2012.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all The Phoenix
Companies, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, June 17, 2013
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          E-mail: kln@federmanlaw.com
          http://www.federmanlaw.com/


PHOENIX COS: June 17 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until June 17, 2013 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against The Phoenix Companies
Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities during the period
between May 5, 2009 and November 7, 2012, inclusive.  The lawsuit
improperly states that the Class Period ends at November 6, 2013.
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Phoenix and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Partner, Melinda Nicholson at
melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com or toll free at 1-877-515-1850.
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 17, 2013.

About the Lawsuit

Phoenix and certain of its executives are charged with issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies, during the Class
Period, in violation of federal securities laws.

On November 8, 2012, the Company disclosed that it will restate
its previously filed financial statements for the years 2009
through 2011, interim periods for 2011, and first and second
quarter of 2012 to "correct certain errors relating to the
classification of items on the consolidated statement of cash
flows in those periods."  In March 2013, Phoenix announced that it
would not be able to timely file its Form 10-K for 2012 as a
result of the restatements.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com/

Contact: Melinda Nicholson, Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com


PILOT FLYING J: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Rebate Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Caniglia and Alison Grant, writing for The Plain Dealer,
report that a Georgia trucking company has filed a class-action
lawsuit against Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam's family
business, Pilot Flying J, claiming it was duped by Mr. Haslam's
salespeople in a rebate program for fuel.

Atlantic Coast Carriers, a tiny trucking company in Hazlehurst,
Ga., says in the suit that Pilot Flying J "has benefited from
inaccurate rebate procedures for certain clients, including
Atlantic Coast and several other clients."  The suit, filed in
Knox County, Tenn., Circuit Court on April 20, alleges Mr.
Haslam's company "derived funds from a pattern of racketeering
activity."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Haslam could not be reached on April 22.
Attorneys for the company also could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit also says Pilot Flying J's executives and salespeople
"conspired to manually reduce the amount of rebate payments due to
Atlantic Coast and numerous other customers in order to increase
Pilot profits and increase sales commissions of its sales agents,
without the consent or knowledge of affected customers."

The lawsuit was filed days after FBI agents raided Pilot J's
corporate offices and the homes of salespeople, seeking documents
and information about the company's rebate program.

In an affidavit seeking a federal judge's permission to search the
properties, an FBI agent who works in public corruption and
complex white-collar crime said Mr. Haslam knew about the years-
long fraud committed by top salespeople.  The document says the
salespeople defrauded and targeted unsophisticated trucking
companies through the rebate program.  The document says several
trucking companies were defrauded, and the amount involved
millions of dollars.

The lawsuit references the FBI affidavit throughout the lawsuit.
It cited the document as claiming that Pilot Flying J officials
kept spreadsheets showing the amount owed to customers under their
rebate agreements versus the amount actually paid.

On April 19, Mr. Haslam gave a brief statement to reporters,
saying he would not step down from the company because "I haven't
done anything wrong."  He has denied the allegations.


PINNACLE GROUP: Tenants Want Court to Overturn Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Mireya Navarro, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
major settlement between rent-regulated tenants and a large New
York City landlord may be at risk after some of the tenants
complained that they were not eligible for millions of dollars in
compensation.

A group of tenants who had settled a lawsuit against the Pinnacle
Group, a major New York City landlord, were back on April 22
asking the United States Court of Appeals to overturn the
settlement.  The tenants asked a federal appeals court in
Manhattan on April 22 to overturn the settlement of their class-
action lawsuit against the Pinnacle Group, which was originally
brought over allegations of illegal rents and harassment.

They have obtained new lawyers, who are seeking to renegotiate the
settlement or, if new terms cannot be reached, go to trial.  In
court papers, the new lawyers said the agreement ends up barring
most of the approximately 22,000 tenants in Pinnacle buildings who
were represented in the class-action suit from receiving payment
from the company for rent overcharges.  The appellants said
Pinnacle was liable for much more than what it had agreed to pay.

"They were trying to get us to leave," said Bernice Starr, an
81-year-old plaintiff who navigated the courthouse steps in
Manhattan unsteadily with her walker to attend the April22 oral
arguments. She said the company refused to make repairs to her
three-bedroom apartment in a building in Washington Heights.

From the outset, the original settlement, which was reached in
2011 and approved by a federal judge last year, drew mixed
reactions from tenants, some of whom said they were unsure about
who would be eligible.

The tenants sued the Pinnacle Group and its principal owner, Joel
Wiener, in 2007, alleging that the company illegally inflated
rents and "systematically" harassed tenants to force them to move
so the company could charge higher rents.

While denying the charges, Pinnacle settled the case by agreeing
to have a court-appointed administrator hear the tenants'
individual complaints and decide compensation.  The company also
agreed to follow new procedures in carrying out rent increases and
evictions in its buildings, as well as to pay $2.5 million to
legal and tenant-rights groups to help the tenants make claims.

But the new appeal, filed within weeks after the agreement was
finalized last summer, has frozen the original settlement.

Pinnacle bought hundreds of apartment buildings in the mid-2000s
and said it was trying to improve conditions in those that were
deteriorating.  But housing advocates claimed the company was
among the private-equity firms that paid top dollar for rent-
regulated buildings during the city's housing boom and then
showered tenants with eviction notices in order to charge higher
rents.

In court documents, the tenants appealing the agreement said it
allowed only tenants who rented their units from Pinnacle during a
certain time period to recover illegal rent overcharges.  The
agreement also excluded tenants who signed leases before Pinnacle
bought the buildings, even if the company benefited from illegal
rents set by previous owners and had a legal obligation to make
sure its rents did not violate housing laws.  In all, the
appellants argued, the settlement excluded 77 percent of all
plaintiffs from getting compensation for rent overcharges.

A lawyer for Pinnacle, Mitchell Karlan, called the original
agreement "fair and reasonable" and said of the appeal: "We expect
that the settlement will be approved just as it was."

Richard F. Levy was the lawyer who negotiated the original class-
action settlement for the tenants.  In an interview on April 22,
he noted that fewer than 1 percent of the plaintiffs objected or
opted out of the original deal.  In court documents, Mr. Levy said
the exclusions were proper and hardly arbitrary -- the claims
either exceeded the statute of limitations for the case or were
primarily based on the bad conduct of other landlords.  He
defended the agreement as providing benefits to all plaintiffs,
beyond the rent refund issue.  "It is very sad," he said of the
appeal.  "All they have done here is delay the relief for the
22,000 plaintiffs."


PLY GEM: Selling Substandard Windows, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin.com reports that the manufacturers of Ply Gem vinyl
clad windows have been named in a class action lawsuit filed
recently by homeowners who allege that defects in the windows
caused water to leak into their homes, damage building components
and other property.  In the March 29 complaint filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, the homeowners
accuse Ply Gem Prime Holdings Inc. and its affiliates of marketing
and selling the "illegal" windows, which they say failed to
satisfy industry requirements for testing, labeling and
performance.


ROYAL BANK: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Claims to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that in a setback for a group of
major banks, a Manhattan federal judge has enlarged two massive
class actions brought on behalf of investors in mortgage-backed
securities underwritten by Royal Bank of Scotland, Citigroup and
UBS.  The judge ruled on April 30 that Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll can pursue securities fraud claims relating to 14 MBS
offerings with a combined face value of $25 billion.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on April 18 tossed a consolidated securities class action
alleging Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. executives schemed to
artificially inflate the company's stock price by concealing
lagging bookings, particularly for its European and Mediterranean
cruises, saying the plaintiffs failed to plead scienter.  U.S.
District Judge Kathleen M. Williams granted Royal Caribbean's
motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice, saying the plaintiffs
couldn't prove that the cruise company knowingly and fraudulently
schemed to mislead investors about bookings and earnings potential
from the European and Mediterranean cruises.


RUPERT MURDOCH: News Corp. to Get $139-Mil. Settlement Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, writing for The Financial Times,
reports that News Corp. looks set to reap a sizeable payout from
the $139 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit that alleged
that directors harmed shareholders by letting Rupert Murdoch use
the company he chairs as "his personal fiefdom".

The nature of the "derivative" litigation, in which shareholders
sued board members on behalf of the company, means that insurers
will pay $139 million to News Corp. under its director and officer
indemnity policies.

The Delaware Chancery Court, which must approve the settlement,
will determine how much of that should go to cover plaintiffs'
legal costs.  Jay Eisenhofer -- jeisenhofer@gelaw.com -- of Grant
& Eisenhofer, joint lead counsel to the plaintiffs, said it was
reasonable to expect News Corp to keep most of the $139 million,
which plaintiffs said was the largest cash settlement in a
derivative lawsuit.

Amalgamated Bank, Central Laborers' Pension Fund and the City of
New Orleans Employee's Retirement System brought the case in March
2011, alleging that News Corp.'s GBP415 million acquisition of
Shine from Mr. Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth, showed nepotism and
poor governance.  The complaint was amended in July 2011 to
include claims relating to phone hacking at the News of the World,
News Corp.'s scandal-struck UK tabloid.

The settlement allows News Corp. to clear another obstacle as it
prepares to spin off its publishing and Australian assets from its
television and film businesses this summer.

By last December, it had incurred $250 million in legal and
professional fees related to UK newspaper investigations, and paid
out $25 million in settlements of civil claims.  It had also
provided for $70 million to cover possible liabilities from
remaining claims.

News Corp. disclosed more than 100,000 pages of documents in the
Delaware case and a first attempt at mediation ended without
agreement in February, but the settlement averts the risk of court
appearances that could have generated embarrassing headlines.

News Corp. agreed to several compliance and governance reforms,
most of which it had already disclosed.  These include ensuring
that its audit, compensation, nomination and governance committees
are composed of independent directors.

Directors admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, which prevents
other shareholders from bringing similar claims in future.

Some analysts feared that litigation over hacking and other issues
could take a greater toll.  However, News Corp.'s shares have
rebounded from below $14 in July 2011 to $31.36, up 15 cents in
lunchtime trading on April 22, as it began $10 billion in share
buybacks, kept legal costs contained and promised to split in two.

News Corp. must still weather UK court cases against former
employees including Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive of News
International, and Andy Coulson, former editor of the News of the
World.  Those trials are expected to begin in September.


SPECTRUM PHARMA: O'Mara Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The O'Mara Law Firm on April 18 announced it commenced a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:SPPI) common stock during
the period between August 8, 2012 and March 12, 2013, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Spectrum and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Spectrum is a biotechnology company with integrated commercial and
drug development operations with a focus on hematology and
oncology. In the United States, it markets two oncology drugs,
FUSILEV(R) and ZEVALIV(R).

FUSILEV is a folate analog used for the treatment of patients with
advanced metastatic cancer. The key competitive formulation to
FUSILEV was a generic drug, leucovorin. In 2008 and 2009,
leucovorin supplies declined as one manufacturer reported low
stockpiles due to increased demand and another stopped production
due to expansion of its facility. These shortages of leucovorin
represented a huge opportunity for Spectrum, as it was able to
increase its sales of FUSILEV.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public in connection with
FUSILEV, continually dismissing concerns that sales of FUSILEV
would be adversely affected by increased supplies of leucovorin
and concealing the impact that the increased availability of
leucovorin would have on FUSILEV sales. As a result of defendants'
false statements, Spectrum's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $13.05 per
share on September 18, 2012.

On March 12, 2013, after the market closed, Spectrum issued a
press release providing its full-year revenue outlook. The Company
reported that sales of FUSILEV would be dropping significantly due
to anticipated changes in ordering patterns for FUSILEV, which
were due in part to the recent stabilization of the folate analog
market. Additionally, the Company forecast full-year 2013 revenues
in the range of $160 to $180 million, much lower than analysts'
revenue expectations of $297.33 million for 2013. On this news,
Spectrum's stock plummeted $4.64 per share to close at $7.79 per
share on March 13, 2013, a one-day decline of 37% on volume of
22.5 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) once the availability of
leucovorin increased, Spectrum's sales of FUSILEV would plummet;
(b) the purported advantages of FUSILEV over leucovorin would not
be sufficient for clinics and hospitals to continue to opt for the
more expensive FUSILEV once leucovorin was available in larger
quantities; and (c) based upon the above, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company
and its revenue and earnings during the Class Period.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Spectrum common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 13, 2013. Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member. If you wish to join this litigation or discuss your rights
or interests, or if you would like a copy of the complaint, please
contact plaintiffs' counsel, David O'Mara of The O'Mara Law Firm
at 775-323-1321, or via e-mail at david@omaralaw.net

The O'Mara Law Firm -- http://www.omaralaw.net-- is a full-
service law firm located in Reno, Nevada, serving a wide range of
clients in both state and federal courts. With experience in areas
such as complex commercial and civil litigation, the O'Mara Law
Firm prosecutes securities class action litigation and actions
involving financial fraud.


ST-CHARLES BORROMEE: Accord Reached in Patient Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that after years of experiencing unspeakable
cruelty at the hands of those supposed to be taking care of them,
a group of seniors and severely disabled people at a Montreal
long-term care facility have emerged victorious.

In 1999, a class action lawsuit detailing hundreds of cases of
abuse was launched against the St-Charles Borromee hospital in
Montreal.  But it wasn't until 2003, when family members of a
patient there began secretly recording staff verbally and
psychologically abusing their relative, that people began paying
attention.

During 90 hours of recordings, staff called their relative -- 51-
year-old woman who was left severely disabled after a car accident
when she was 18 -- a "pig," repeatedly told her to "shut up,"
refused requests for water and teased the woman by telling her a
man was watching her outside her window and masturbating.

The tapes set off a chain of events that began with then-health
minister Philippe Couillard calling a provincial inquiry, the
suicide of hospital director Leon Lafleur and, ultimately, an all-
out expose on the conditions in Quebec nursing homes.  The scandal
also encouraged other patients to come forward with their own
stories of abuse, and the class action lawsuit was extended to
include people who'd lived at the facility between 1993 and March
2006.

"It was a situation of grave negligence, of lack of coordination
in service and care, a lack of respect, a lot of problems
according to standards of how you treat patients and how you board
and feed them," said patients' rights advocate Paul Brunet.

            Settlement Agreement Reached 13 Years Later

An out-of-court settlement was finally reached in April, 13 years
since it was launched; if accepted, a few hundred victims and the
families of those who've since passed away are set to be awarded
$8.5 million.

"It was long overdue," Brunet said.

"I mean, after 13 years without the case even being heard in
Superior Court -- that is the real result of, in my mind, some
negligence on the part of the defence lawyers."

When asked whether he believed the delay was part of a strategy on
the defence's part, he said he didn't know.

"But I know one thing -- it's disrespectful to patients."

He said waiting so long on a case affecting elderly and severely
disabled people was "not in very good taste."  Since 1999, nearly
one-third of the residents named in the class action lawsuit
against St-Charles Borromee have died.

             Long-Term Alternatives for Long-Term Care

Brunet said he went to the former St-Charles Borromee in April --
now a government-run long-term care facility known by the French
acronym, CHSLD -- and noticed part of the chapel was being used as
a storage room.  It's not necessarily indicative of abuse, he
said, but it shows a lack of respect for the people being cared
for at the residence.  He pointed to measures currently being
looked at to keep elderly and disabled people at home instead of
placing them in long-term care facilities.  He said having
caregivers visit patients at home in lieu of sending them off to a
home was a promising start.

"It's not much more expensive, but it's certainly more human," he
said.

But for those who have no other option but to be placed in a
residence, Brunet encouraged family members and friends to visit.

"What kind of message do we send [the residences] if we don't go
and visit?" he asked.


STANDARD & POOR'S: IMF Challenges "Lack of Merit" Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Mezrani, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that
litigation funder IMF has challenged Standard & Poor's (S&P) to
put its money where its mouth is in relation to public statements
that an investor class action lacks merit.  IMF is financially
backing a class action against S&P filed by Piper Alderman on
April 16 on behalf of 90 councils, religious organisations,
charities and self-managed super funds.  S&P has claimed the
lawsuit, which alleges the ratings agency assigned misleading
ratings to synthetic derivatives, is "without merit".

John Walker, IMF's executive director, challenged S&P to prove the
claim is frivolous.  "Either they have a reasonable basis for that
representation or they don't," he told Lawyers Weekly.  "If they
do, they should follow it up by applying for the claim to be
struck out or seeking summary judgment."

Mr. Walker said that discrediting the claim without reasonable
grounds could be misleading investors in S&P's listed holding
company, The McGraw-Hill Companies.  He claimed that S&P has made
the assertion without the benefit of the Federal Court pleading.

"[Statements by listed companies] need to have a reasonable basis
or they could be found to be misleading . . . and [S&P] hasn't yet
got the claim," he said. "We're still trying to find someone who's
prepared to accept service on their behalf in Australia."

Mr. Walker explained that Clayton Utz, the firm that represented
S&P in 2012 proceedings, hasn't confirmed instructions to accept
service.

The claim is the second class action launched in Australia
alleging S&P granted misleading ratings of complex financial
products in the lead up to the GFC.  In November last year, the
Federal Court ruled in favour of 12 NSW local councils that lost
millions on failed investments assigned a AAA rating.

In the judgment, Justice Jayne Jagot slammed S&P for failing in
its duty of care to investors by assigning the rating to
"grotesquely complicated" and risky synthetic derivatives known as
constant proportion debt obligations.

Within two hours of the 1459-page judgment being handed down, S&P
said it would appeal the decision.  The announcement was made
without the benefit of legal counsel's advice, claimed Walker.

"The judge spent a lot of time explaining why [S&P] lost and then
[S&P] disregarded that judgment and came out with a statement that
they're going to appeal . . . [the timeframe] shows they were
going to appeal irrespective of the judgment," he said.

Lawyers Weekly approached Piper Alderman for comment but did not
receive a response prior to publication.


TITANIUM DIOXIDE: Court Rules on Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action concerning alleged price-fixing conspiracy in
the market for titanium dioxide, Maryland District Judge Richard
D. Bennett granted, in part, and denied, in part, the defendants'
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of the Plaintiffs' three
proposed experts, Professor George L. Priest, Dr. Bruce W.
Hamilton, and Dr. Russell L. Lamb.

The Plaintiffs' proposed rebuttal expert, Professor Priest, will
be excluded because his testimony is inadmissible under Rule 702
of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court's holding
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993).  The testimony of the Plaintiffs' proposed experts Dr.
Hamilton and Dr. Lamb will not be excluded, and the Motion will be
denied as to those two witnesses.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs Haley Paint Company and Isaac
Industries, Inc., and Intervening Plaintiff East Coast Colorants,
LLC d/b/a Breen Color Concentrates claim that Defendants E.I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co., Huntsman International LLC, Kronos
Worldwide Inc., and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc., engaged
in an unlawful conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, to fix, raise, or maintain the price of
titanium dioxide in the United States.  The Plaintiffs allege that
as a consequence of the unlawful conspiracy, the Defendants were
successful in charging artificially inflated prices for titanium
dioxide products.

Tronox is an alleged co-conspirator who filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in January 2009, and is therefore precluded
from being named as a defendant.

Titanium dioxide is a dry chemical power that is the world's most
widely used pigment for providing whiteness, brightness, and
opacity to many products, particularly paints and other coatings.

The case is In Re: Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, Civil
Action No. RDB-10-0318 (D. Md.).  A copy of the District Court's
May 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/QZKkPn
from Leagle.com.


TORCHMARK CORP: "Fitzhugh" Class Suit Dismissed in December
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2011, purported class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company and Torchmark
Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (Fitzhugh v. American Income Life Insurance Company and
Torchmark Corporation, Case No. 1:11-cv-00533). The plaintiff, a
formerly independently contracted American Income agent, alleged
that American Income intentionally misclassified its agents as
independent contractors rather than as employees in order to
escape minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as to avoid payroll taxes, workers
compensation premiums and other benefits required to be provided
by employers. Monetary damages in the amount of unpaid
compensation plus liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest
as well as injunctive and/or declaratory relief were sought by the
plaintiff on behalf of the purported class. On November 3, 2011,
the Court granted American Income's motion to compel arbitration
and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed this decision. In May
2012, the parties negotiated a settlement of this matter and filed
a joint motion for its approval by the Court. On December 4, 2012,
the Court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing
the case with prejudice, according to Torchmark's 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.


TORCHMARK CORP: Trial Involving United American to Continue Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a class action litigation involving a subsidiary of
Torchmark Corporation has been continued until October 21, 2013,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Torchmark subsidiary, United American was named as defendant in
purported class action litigation filed on May 31, 2011 in Cross
County Arkansas Circuit Court and subsequently removed to the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
(Kennedy v. United American Insurance Company (Case No. 2:11-cv-
00131-SWW). In the litigation, filed on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of owners of certain limited benefit hospital and
surgical expense policies from United American, the plaintiff
alleged that United American breached the policy by failing and/or
refusing to pay benefits for the total number of days an insured
is confined to a hospital and by limiting payment to the number of
days for which there are incurred hospital room charges despite
policy obligations allegedly requiring United American to pay
benefits for services and supplies in addition to room charges.
Claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, bad faith
refusal to pay first party benefits, breach of the implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, and violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act were initially asserted.
The plaintiff sought declaratory relief, restitution and/or
monetary damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

In September 2011, the plaintiff dismissed all causes of action,
except for the breach of contract claim. On November 14, 2011,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint based upon the same facts
asserting only breach of contract claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide restitution/monetary relief class or, in the first
alternative, a purported multiple-state restitution/monetary
relief class or, in the second alternative, a purported Arkansas
statewide restitution/monetary relief class. Restitution and/or
monetary relief for United American's alleged breach of contract,
costs, attorney's fees and expenses, expert fees, prejudgment
interest and other relief are being sought on behalf of the
plaintiff and members of the class. On December 7, 2011, United
American filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's amended
complaint, which the Court subsequently denied on July 24, 2012.

On September 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a second amended and
supplemental complaint with the same allegations on behalf of a
nationwide class or alternatively, an Arkansas statewide class
limited to GSP2 policies. Plaintiff filed a third supplemental and
amending class action complaint and a motion for leave to file to
file an amended complaint on November 21, 2012 again with the same
allegations but a different plaintiff class and alternatively, for
sub-classes or a multistate class, which was opposed by United
American. Plaintiff also filed a motion for class certification on
November 21, 2012. On December 28, 2012, United American filed its
response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
parties are presently awaiting the Court's rulings on various
outstanding motions and the trial of this case has been continued
until October 21, 2013.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Unit Continues to Defend Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc.'s subsidiary, Psychiatric
Solutions, Inc., continues to defend a securities class action
lawsuit in Tennessee, in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Garden City Employees' Retirement System v.
PSI is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations
of federal securities laws. We intend to defend the case
vigorously. Should we be deemed liable in this matter, we believe
we would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries for
amounts paid by us, subject to certain limitations and
deductibles. Included in our consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2012 and 2011, is an estimated reserve (current
liability) and corresponding commercial insurance recovery
(current asset) which did not have a material impact on our
financial statements. Although we believe the commercial insurance
recoveries are adequate to satisfy potential liability and related
legal fees in connection with this matter, we can provide no
assurance that the ultimate liability will not exceed the
commercial insurance recoveries which would make us liable for the
excess."


USEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Employee Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of an employee class action
lawsuit against USEC Inc., according to the Company's March 18,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, against the Company by a former Portsmouth GDP employee
claiming that the Company owes severance benefits to him and other
similarly situated employees that have transitioned or will
transition to the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE")
decontamination and decommissioning ("D&D") contractor.  The
plaintiff amended its complaint on August 31, 2011, and
February 10, 2012, among other things, to limit the purported
class of similarly situated employees to salaried employees at the
Portsmouth site who transitioned to the D&D contractor and are
allegedly eligible for or owed benefits.  On October 11, 2012, the
United States District Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as moot.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal on
January 18, 2013.  The Company continues to believe that it has
meritorious defenses against the lawsuit and has not accrued any
amounts for this matter.

USEC Inc. -- http://www.usec.com/-- a global energy company, is a
supplier of low enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power
plants.  The Company is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


VERIZON COMMS: Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Class Action Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
a district court ruling dismissing the action styled as MAUREEN
CHANDRA, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Appellant, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
No. 12-3070.

The complaint is predicated on the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
common law and equitable fraud, and breach of contract.  In her
complaint, Chandra alleges that Verizon Communications imposed an
"improper service fee . . . [on her as a] subscriber[] of its TV
Protection Plan."  Ms. Chandra asserts Verizon charged her a $75
fee for service that it performed on her 65-inch television set at
her premises even though the TV Protection Plan that she purchased
from Verizon specifically provided that subscribers to the plan
would not have any obligation to pay a fee for service of sets
with screens of more than 32 inches.  Though Ms. Chandra has
attempted to bring this case on a class action basis, the District
Court dismissed the complaint without addressing the class action
issues.

The District Court in its June 22, 2012 opinion and order granted
a motion that Verizon made to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In its opinion, the Court -- though accepting
Ms. Chandra's factual allegations in the light most favorable to
her -- held that the germane provisions of the plan on which Ms.
Chandra relied in her argument that the $75 fee did not apply to
the service of her 65-inch set were clear and unambiguous and only
excluded the remote control unit for the set and a FiOS back-up
battery and not service of a television set itself regardless of
its size from the $75 fee.

The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court's finding that
the plan is clear and unambiguous and provides for the $75 service
fee that Verizon imposed on Ms. Chandra.

A copy of the Third Circuit's April 29, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/0NfvaAfrom Leagle.com.


VOLVO GROUP: Judge Refuses to Certify Engine Defect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina
federal judge on April 22 refused to certify a class action
accusing two Volvo Group units of concealing engine defects from
consumers, saying the plaintiffs failed to address what state's
laws should apply to warranty claims.  U.S. District Judge
Catherine C. Eagles said the plaintiffs have not set forth what
laws they believe apply to state law-based breach of warranty
claims, and absent that information, the court cannot determine
whether the case will be resolved by answering the proposed common
questions regarding alleged defects.


WAL-MART STORES: Ex-Assistant Manager Files Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Management Daily reports that a former assistant manager
at a Walmart store in Overbrook, in Philadelphia, is suing the
retailer, claiming it repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act by classifying assistant managers as exempt employees -- and
he wants to raise the stakes by turning the case into a class
action lawsuit.

The man claims Walmart assistant managers' duties make them
nonexempt, hourly workers.  His lawsuit alleges he frequently
worked 50 to 55 hours per week.  It seeks overtime pay, penalties
and interest.

If the bid for class action status succeeds, Walmart will have an
even bigger problem on its hands: The class of plaintiffs could
number more than 1,000.  According to its website, there are 156
Walmart outlets in Pennsylvania -- 105 supercenters, 28 discount
stores and 23 Sam's Clubs.  The lawsuit claims each retail unit
employs eight to 10 assistant managers.


WARWICK VALLEY: Partners Defend Consumer Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Valley Telephone Company's partners are defending consumer
class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
March 18, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Verizon Wireless of the East LP, the general partner and a limited
partner, and Cellco Partnership, the other limited partner, are
subject to lawsuits and other claims including class actions,
product liability, patent infringement, intellectual property,
antitrust, partnership disputes, and claims involving relations
with resellers and agents.  Cellco is also currently defending
lawsuits filed against it and other participants in the wireless
industry alleging various adverse effects as a result of wireless
phone usage.  Various consumer class action lawsuits allege that
Cellco violated certain state consumer protection laws and other
statutes and defrauded customers through misleading billing
practices or statements.  These matters may involve
indemnification obligations by third parties and/or affiliated
parties covering all or part of any potential damage awards
against Cellco and the Partnership and/or insurance coverage.

The Company says all of the matters are subject to many
uncertainties, and the outcomes are not currently predictable.

Warwick Valley Telephone Company, which is currently doing
business as Alteva -- http://www.Alteva.com/-- was incorporated
in New York in 1902 and is headquartered in Warwick, New York.
The Company provides cloud-based Unified Communications solutions
for the medium business, large business and enterprise markets.
Through its UC business, the Company delivers leading edge cloud-
based UC solutions including enterprise hosted Voice over Internet
Protocol, hosted Microsoft Communication Services, mobile
convergence and advanced voice applications for the desktop.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Test Samples at Park Following Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa McCray, writing for The Blade, reports that hundreds of
environmental samples, thought to be linked by some to a
children's cancer cluster, will be taken and tested at the former
Whirlpool Park property.

Whirlpool Corp. on April 22 disclosed it would move ahead with a
plan to take about 360 soil, surface, and ground water, stream
sediment, fill material, and soil pile samples at the former park
near Green Springs.  The company will pay for the sampling
activity, expected to begin in mid to late-May.

A Sandusky County Common Pleas Court class-action lawsuit filed in
March alleges a connection between the cancer cluster, which
includes at least 35 childhood cases within a 12-mile radius of
Clyde, and the discovery of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, at
the old park.  Of those cases, four children have died.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year found elevated
levels of the contaminants in soil samples from the site,
prompting Whirlpool to prepare a plan to conduct testing, said
company spokesman Kristine Vernier.

Whirlpool and Grist Mill Creek LLC, which purchased the property
in 2008, are defendants in the class-action suit filed by the
Toledo and Fremont law firm Albrechta and Coble.

Attorney Tom Bowlus, who represents Grist Mill Creek of Fremont,
said testing will occur with cooperation from the property owners.
Mr. Bowlus said the goal is to examine the entire property, with a
concentration of the sampling taking place in areas where there
could be problems.

Ms. Vernier said she did not know how long it would take to
complete the testing.  The next steps, including potential clean-
up efforts, would depend on what is found, Mr. Bowlus said.

Whirlpool has been working with the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency on a voluntary action program to address concerns at the
site.  Ms. Vernier said the federal environmental agency provides
oversight in the process.

The U.S. EPA stated in a December report that "further sampling is
required to determine the extent of contamination."

Whirlpool purchased the park site in 1953 and used the property as
a recreation area for employees, their families, and others.  It
closed in 2006.


WINNEBAGO COUNTY, IL: Strip-Search Class Action Settlement Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Nilsson, writing for Rockford's New Leader, reports that a
Federal Judge approves a settlement in a class action lawsuit
against the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department.

The suit was filed in 2007 by Rosemary Ramundo and others who were
strip searched in jail.  It happened between 2005 and 2007.  Ms.
Raymundo was one of many who said officers violated her
constitutional rights.

Although the Winnebago County State's Attorney's office says the
Sheriff's Department didn't do anything wrong, the county still
decided to settle.  The suit will cost the county $2.3 million.

Ms. Raymundo will get $45,000 as part of the settlement, each
person considered as general jail population will get $50, while
temporary detainees will get $850.

The settlement got preliminary approval by a judge in January and
a fairness hearing was held at the beginning of April.  Judge
Frederick Kapala recently gave final approval to the deal saying
it is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interest of
the class as a whole.


WIVENHOE DAM: No Timeline for 2011 Flood Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bridie Jabour, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that almost
5000 people have registered for a class action over the 2011
floods but there is still no timeline for when it could be
launched.

Maurice Blackburn, the law firm behind the class action, has had
just under 2500 sign up to the proposed lawsuit and 4800 people
have registered their interest.  There are hopes the class action
could yield up to $500 million for people whose homes flooded --
something Maurice Blackburn argues should not have happened if
Wivenhoe Dam had been operated properly.

"Work on the class action is building strongly, and as in any
lawsuit of this size, there is much to do to ensure that the
evidence is properly in place before we file," principal at
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Damian Scattini, said.

"We now have over 4800 registrants, and will be looking to hold
more public meetings soon to update people.

"The action will be filed following completion of the work
required for the case to be undertaken over the coming months."

The law firm has not spoken publicly about the class action since
it unveiled flood maps that it claimed showed the houses and
properties which should not have flooded.  It later admitted it
would not be use the maps in any court case and they had been used
to publicize the case.  The law firm held a series of public
meetings last year to drum up interest and is planning to hold
another series in the coming months.

The action is being funded by IMF which is expecting to invest
about AUD10 million but it is conditional on enough flood victims
being recruited with a certain dollar amount of damage done to
their homes.


* 3 Court Decisions Target Attorney Fees in M&A Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Dunn, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that while
companies involved in mergers and acquisitions have experienced a
surge in litigation in recent years, three court decisions in
March 2013 have taken aim at plaintiffs' attorney fees.

The rulings -- two in Delaware and one in Texas -- "suggest a
trend towards greater judicial scrutiny of 'disclosure-only'
merger litigation settlements and, in particular, attorneys' fee
awards in such settlements," according to a Morrison & Foerster
newsletter.

As Delaware Court of Chancery Chancellor Leo Strine put it in
rejecting a $500,000 attorney fee award in In re Transatlantic
Holdings Inc., the plaintiffs "achieved nothing substantial for
the class. . . . [and] participated in no meaningful way in making
sure that the class got something meaningful."

Lawsuits following the announcement of an M&A transaction haven't
always been so commonplace.  But the frequency has shot up since
the mid-aughts: where 39.5 percent of deals worth more than $100
million were subject to litigation in 2005, 92.1 percent of them
were by 2011, according to a study of 1,117 takeovers by
University of Notre Dame finance professor Matthew Cain and Ohio
State University law professor Steven Davidoff.

Most of the suits examined by Cain and Davidoff settled (71.6
percent); shareholders were compensated in less than five percent
of settlements.

All of which prompted Columbia law professor John Coffee Jr. to
argue that the "new" brand of M&A litigation "produces little, if
any, discernible benefit for the shareholder class," according to
a column in the New York Law Journal (a CorpCounsel.com sibling
publication).

"Instead, the vast majority of these cases settle on a
'disclosure-only' basis, with some additional disclosures about
the transaction being made to the shareholders," Mr. Coffee wrote.
"Despite [which] the plaintiff's attorneys make out like bandits,
receiving a mean fee award in the Cain and Davidoff study of
$1.413 million."

Which brings us back to the happenings in the Delaware and Texas
courts.

First, Delaware: While the reinsurer Transatlantic, which merged
with insurer Alleghany Corp. in 2012, did not oppose a motion to
settle the resulting shareholder litigation, Chancellor Strine
wasn't having it.

"In a hearing on the settlement, Chancellor Strine rejected the
settlement in strong language, declined to certify a class, and
denied the fee application, expressing serious doubts about the
usefulness of the agreed upon supplemental disclosures and the
adequacy of the named plaintiffs as class representatives," write
Morrison & Foerster's Joel Haims (who chairs the firm's securities
litigation, enforcement, and white-collar defense group) and
litigation associate James Beha II.  Ultimately, on March 18, the
case was dismissed.

In a March 19 Delaware decision, In re PAETEC Holdings Corp, the
court did end up approving the $500,000 attorneys' fees. However,
"in doing so, Vice Chancellor [Sam] Glasscock echoed many of the
concerns animating Chancellor Strine's decision in In re
Transatlantic and reaffirmed the court's role in scrutinizing fee
awards in class settlements," Messrs. Haims and Beha point out.

Specifically, the court highlighted the "risk in any disclosure-
only settlement that both the plaintiffs and the defendants have
agreed to trivial disclosures as the path of least resistance."

And in the Lone Star State on March 28, the Texas Fourteenth Court
of Appeals put its stamp on the issue.  In Kazman v. Frontier Oil
Corp., the court "held that the state's Rules of Civil Procedure
precluded any fee award as a matter of law under a class
settlement that did not provide cash benefits to class members,
regardless of the benefit conferred on shareholders by additional
disclosures or other relief," Morrison & Foerster reports.

Messrs. Haims and Beha note that Delaware and Texas have long been
popular forums for M&A litigation -- so plaintiffs' attorneys may
need to re-think their strategies for corporate deals.  "[T]aken
together," they write, "these cases should cause the plaintiffs'
bar to evaluate more carefully the basis of merger suits and the
relief to shareholders that such suits are meant to secure."


* 9th Cir. Continues Campaign v. Settlement Conflicts of Interest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that the Ninth Circuit is
continuing its campaign against conflicts of interest in class
action agreements, throwing out a $45 million settlement with
three credit reporting agencies because the incentive awards to
named plaintiffs were contingent on their support for the deal.
The court earlier rejected class action settlements in cases
involving Kellogg's cereal and the BAR/BRI preparatory course.


* BYOD May Trigger Employee Privacy Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Tom Kaneshige, writing for CIO, reports that like most tragic love
stories, the "Bring Your Own Device" affair has come to an abrupt
end, a bitter breakup looms, and lawyers are circling.

In the early days of BYOD, say, last year, employees -- especially
Millennials -- fell madly in love with the idea of using their own
iPhones, Android smartphones and newfangled tablets for work.
They could finally ditch corporate-issued BlackBerrys.  BYOD
ushered in a new era of consumer tech in the enterprise, one that
promised employees and employers will live happily ever after.

But the BYOD romance has suddenly turned sour.

Employees are questioning the intrusion of corporate eyes on their
personal devices.  Did IT turn their beloved smartphone into a spy
that tracks their whereabouts? Employees are beginning to sense
companies taking advantage of BYOD by intruding on personal time
to get free work time.

Now they're thinking about suing.

"I anticipate a bunch of little [lawsuits], then something big
will happen that'll be a class action and become headline news,"
says CEO John Marshall at AirWatch, an enterprise mobile device
management (MDM) vendor with 6,500 customers, including Lowe's,
United Airlines and Best Buy.

It has already started.  A lawsuit currently winding its way in a
federal court in Chicago claims that the city owes some 200 police
officers millions of dollars in overtime back pay because officers
were pressured into answering work-related calls and emails over
department-issued BlackBerrys during off-hours.

While this particular case doesn't involve BYOD, there's no
question BYOD blurs the line even more between work life and
personal life.

If a CIO has hourly employees with BYOD smartphones, she might
want to leverage MDM to control email delivery to those devices.
That is, an employer can set a business rule that won't allow
delivery of corporate email to a subset of users during off-hours.
Or a CIO can address this issue in the BYOD terms-of-use
agreement.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

While not dispensing legal advice, Mr. Marshall offers up another
legal nightmare scenario: Lacking MDM tools to block out what can
and cannot be seen on a BYOD smartphone, a help desk technician
notices that an employee's device has a lot of personal apps about
a health problem -- and mentions his concern to the employee in
the cafeteria.

"The employee can say, 'How in the world did you know that?'"
Mr. Marshall says.  "All of a sudden, something that's very benign
and innocuous turns into something that's blown out of
proportion."

Again, a comprehensive BYOD terms-of-use agreement, along with
transparency about the capabilities and limitations of the
technology, will help ward off such scenarios.  The IT staff also
needs to be educated about their role in a BYOD environment, says
Mr. Marshall.

However, this doesn't mean problems won't crop up.

Part of the problem is that BYOD often puts business unit managers
who aren't well-versed in technical user agreements in a
leadership position with mobile apps.  They're likely to give the
green-light to rogue mobile apps that violate such agreements.

For instance, employees are chiefly concerned about privacy and
especially location-based services with BYOD, and so many user
agreements stipulate that apps will not collect location-based
information.  But then someone wants to be helpful and builds a
map app for the corporate campus that allows employees to schedule
conference rooms and find safety information, such as where to go
if there's a tornado.

"Maybe there's also a button on there that says where you are in
the campus," Mr. Marshall says.  "All of a sudden people wake up
and realize that every single device using that app is collecting
location-based information -- that's an issue."

Sound far-fetched? "These are really plausible scenarios,"
Mr. Marshall adds.  "There's so much copy and paste and reuse of
all these components that these things can happen very
innocently."

Then there's the dreaded remote wipe, which can land a company in
some legal hot water.

Just last year, CIOs said they felt comfortable with BYOD because
they held security's holy grail: remote wipe, a scorched-earth
capability for wiping all data on a mobile device.

But employees weren't happy with the idea that the company can
wipe personal data on their personal device.  Some employees
refused to participate in the BYOD program for this reason.
Others waited days or weeks before reporting a lost or stolen
device so that IT wouldn't wipe it.  In late 2010, NPR told the
story of a woman's BYOD iPhone mistakenly wiped by her employer,
resulting in lost contacts and photos.

MDM software advanced quickly and seemed to come up with a fix.
Now companies can wipe only corporate apps from a BYOD smartphone
or tablet, leaving personal apps untouched.  In fact, AirWatch
won't even allow a full device wipe anymore for legal reasons.

While this helps tremendously, it doesn't completely solve the
problem.

Let's say a company buys the popular productivity app, Evernote,
for employees to put on their BYOD smartphones.  Since the company
paid for the app, the company can remove it at any time.  The
note-taking app collects company data but also might store
personal data, too.  An employee can use Evernote to create a
shopping list, recipes, vacation plans, or perhaps something more
critical to their job.

Guess what happens to this personal data when the employee leaves
the company? The app, along with all the data, is wiped from the
device and account.  If the BYOD terms-of-use agreement regarding
Evernote wasn't spelled out clearly, who is liable for the lost
data?

The bloom is off the BYOD rose, and so companies had better add
protections against employee lawsuits in the BYOD terms-of-use
agreement and leverage MDM to ensure the agreement is followed.

Truth is, employees tend to get a bit emotional when their privacy
is being violated or their location is being tracked via a mobile
device that they personally own.  They don't like their personal
data to be wiped, either.  When these things happen, companies can
expect the wrath of a scorned employee.

"That's where it gets tricky," Mr. Marshall says.


* Confidential Settlement Agreement in Glass MDL Not Discoverable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Intelligencer reports that a confidential settlement
agreement between a large-scale window manufacturer and a flat
glass producer is not discoverable by the remaining defendants in
the multidistrict litigation case alleging price-fixing among
makers of flat glass, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled.


* Homeowners in Foreclosure-Abuse Settlement Received Bad Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
msnNOW.com reports that some struggling homeowners who received
long-awaited checks mid-April as part of a $3.6 billion
foreclosure-abuse class-action settlement with some of the
nation's biggest banks were startled (or maybe not) when the
checks bounced due to insufficient funds.  "Is this for real?" one
disappointed dude wondered.  It's unclear how many of the 1.4
million homeowners to whom checks were sent were left empty-handed
and scratching their heads.  Apparently there was some confusion
at the company distributing the checks on the banks' behalf.  A
homeowners' advocate called the snafu "the perfect ending for such
a debacle."


* Immigrant Detainees' Right to Counsel Expanded After Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that in the first fundamental
expansion of the right to counsel in 30 years, immigrant detainees
facing removal who are mentally incompetent to represent
themselves will be entitled to legal assistance at the
government's expense.  The change is the result of a new policy of
the departments of Justice and Homeland Security and a ruling by a
California federal judge in a class action brought by the ACLU.


* ILG Fights TRO Over $5.5MM Fee Award in Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that Initiative Legal Group is fighting back
against two lawyers who accuse the plaintiffs firm of breaching
legal ethics to fleece clients of millions of dollars.  ILG has
retained Arnold & Porter to appeal a temporary restraining order
that froze a $5.5 million fee award ILG negotiated in a $6 million
settlement of a wage-and-hour mass action.


                             *********

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  * * *