CAR_Public/130509.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 91

                             Headlines


ACER AMERICA: Settles Class Action Over Pre-Installed Windows OS
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Says Ex-Employee Illegally Obtained Documents
ATLANTIC POWER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
ATLANTIC POWER: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in Mass.

BAYER CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mirena Intrauterine System
BLACK HILLS: Class Action Sought for Disability Insurance Suit
BNSF RAILWAY: Antitrust Suit Reached Appeals Court
BP PLC: Lief Cabraser Offers Assistance in Submitting Claims
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Health Minister in Dilemma Over Class Action

CARSON'S DELI: Recalls Assorted Cookie Pack, Fudge Brownie Cookie
COYOTE UGLY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Awaits Final OK of IPO-Related Suit Deal
ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Del. & Utah
ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Still Awaits Ruling in "Pennington" Suit

EVO ISRAEL: Woman Claims Olive Oil Unfit for Human Consumption
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Action Settlement Approval Overturned
FAMILY DOLLAR: 10th Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. Bank Settled for $500 in February

FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Exaggerated Fuel Efficiency Claims
GLOBALFOUNDRIES: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid Overtime
HANSEN MEDICAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Amend Securities Complaint
HARVEST NATURAL: 2 Law Firms File Securities Class Action
HERSHEY CO: Judge Refuses to Certify Overtime Class Action

HILLERICH & BRADSBY: Recalls 13,000 Louisville Slugger OneX Bats
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Howard Smith Firm Files Class Suit
ITALIAN COLORS: Womble Carlyle Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls Children's Tylenol Sold in South Korea
JPMORGAN CHASE: Napoli Bern Files Class Action in New York

KRINOS FOODS: Recalls Tahini Jars Because of Possible Health Risk
LAW SCHOOL: Disabled Test Takers' Class Action Can Proceed
LEM PRODUCTS: Recalls 14,700 5-Tray Food Dehydrators With Timer
LHC GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Omaha" Class Suit Denied in March
LIPPER HOLDINGS: PwC Obtains Favorable Judgment in Investors' Suit

MAPLE VIEW: Recalls 2,650 Pints of Three Flavors of Ice Cream
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action
MONGIELLO ITALIAN: Recalls Mozzarella With Chorizo & Cilantro
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 2,100 Cub Cadet Commercial Lawn Mowers
NESTLE PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizzas Due to Foreign Matters

NESTLE USA: Recalls Calif. Pizza Kitchen & DiGiorno Frozen Pizzas
ORIENT PAPER: Awaits Final Okay of $2-Mil. Securities Suit Deal
ORLEANS PARISH: Sheriff Opposes Motion to Appoint Receiver
P.E. & F.: Recalls 123 Lbs. of Meatballs Due to Contamination
PARADISE CITY II: Strippers Agree to Participate in Arbitration

PAYPAL PTE: Facing Class Action Over Unauthorized Conversion
PENGUIN GROUP: Judge Denies Request for Jury Trial in E-Book Case
PETRO CANADA: Gowlings Discusses Class Action Ruling
PILOT FLYING J: Attorney Expects More People to Join Class Action
PRIME FOOD: Recalls Latis Brand Herring Fillet "Antalja" in Oil

REAL PASTA: Recalls 25,000 Pounds of Frozen Pasta Products
SAN ANTONIO, TX: Lead Plaintiff in Equality Class Action Dies
SARA LEE: Settles Workers' Class Action for $1.4 Million
SMART & FINAL: Recalls La Romanella Tri-Color Cheese Tortellini
SWEETWATER UNION: Court Highlights Title IX in Class Action Ruling

SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Discussed Initial Discovery
TIMBER BAY: Saskatoon Judge Hears Arguments in Abuse Class Action
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Antitrust Suit Discovery to End May 24
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Still Defends Fuel Temperature Suits
UNITED STATES: Legal Aid Ordered for Mentally Disabled Immigrants

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in Calif.
VISA INC: Judge Threatens to Hold Merchant Groups in Contempt
ZAGG INC: Two Shareholder Class Suits Consolidated in March
ZHONGPIN INC: Faces 4 Suits Over Proposed Buyout by Xianfu Zhu

* Business Groups Wants FCC to Ease Robocall Rules
* Professor Gives Advice on How to Negate Impact of Dukes Ruling
* Silicosis Suit Shows Lack of Class Action Procedural Rules in SA
* U.S. Supreme Court Avoids Key Questions in ERISA Class Actions


                             *********


ACER AMERICA: Settles Class Action Over Pre-Installed Windows OS
----------------------------------------------------------------
KCC Class Action Services disclosed that a statement is being
released by the Settlement Administrator for the Acer notebook
settlement:

The parties have reached a settlement in a nationwide class action
lawsuit alleging that Acer America Corporation advertised and sold
Acer notebook computers that did not contain enough Random Access
Memory ("RAM") to support certain pre-installed versions of the
Microsoft(R) Windows Vista operating system.  Acer denies the
claims, but has agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs and
risks of a trial.

The Settlement includes all U.S. residents who purchased a new
Acer notebook computer that: (1) came pre-installed with a
Microsoft(R) Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate
operating system; (2) came with 1 gigabyte ("GB") of RAM or less
as shared memory for both the system and graphics; (3) was
purchased from an authorized retailer; and (4) was not returned
for a refund.

Class Members may claim either: (a) a 16GB USB Flash Drive with
ReadyBoost technology; (b) a check for $10.00; (c) a check for up
to $100.00 for reimbursement of any repair costs that were
incurred before April 25, 2013 in an effort to resolve performance
issues related to insufficient RAM; or (d) for Class Members who
still own their computer, a 1GB or 2GB laptop memory DIMM that
will allow the Acer notebook to operate with 2GB of RAM.

Any class member may seek to be excluded from the settlement by
filing a notice of "opt out."  Class Members who remain in the
settlement, either by submitting a claim or doing nothing, have
the right to object to the settlement or ask to speak at the
hearing.  Opt out notices, objections, and any requests to appear
are due by July 24, 2013. In order to get any benefits from the
settlement, Class Members must submit a Claim Form by July 24,
2013.  Claim Forms are available at http://www.AcerLawsuit.comor
by calling 1-877-761-0698.  Claim forms will also be mailed and
emailed to those class members for whom Acer has contact
information.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 4, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the settlement, attorneys' fees,
costs, expenses and incentive awards.

For more information about the settlement or to file a claim,
visit http://www.AcerLawsuit.comor call 1-877-761-0698.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Brubaker Calkins, writing for
Bloomberg News, report that Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a partner in
the BP Plc well that was the source of the largest U.S. offshore
spill, asked a federal judge in Texas to throw out a lawsuit
claiming the company misled investors over the project's risks
before and after the blowout.

Investors accused Anadarko, which held a 25 percent interest in
BP's Macondo well, of understating its role in the project and
falsely claiming it faced minimal financial liability from the
2010 blowout off the Louisiana coast.  The securities-fraud suit,
filed as a class action (APC), seeks recovery of billions of
dollars of lost share value resulting from the spill.

Anadarko denies any false statements, before or after the spill,
and disputes the investors' claims that the company was involved
in bad decisions made prior to the blowout or during attempts to
cap the well.  The company urged U.S. District Court Judge Keith
P. Ellison at a hearing in Houston on April 24 to throw out the
case.

"The plaintiffs are making an attempt to pound a square peg into
events that do not constitute securities fraud," Charles Schwartz,
an attorney for Anadarko, argued.

The blast aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11
workers and generated hundreds of lawsuits against BP; Vernier,
Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd., owner of the Deepwater Horizon;
and Houston-based Halliburton Co., which provided cementing
services for the project.
Spill Claims

The lawsuits also named Anadarko and Mitsui & Co. (8031)'s MOEX
Offshore 2007, which had a 10 percent share, as defendants.
Anadarko agreed to pay BP $4 billion to settle its share of oil
spill claims.  MOEX settled for $1.07 billion.

The securities-fraud lawsuit against Anadarko and company
executives was initially filed in 2010 in federal court in New
York and moved to Texas in 2012.  The lawsuit was assigned to
Judge Ellison, who is overseeing similar investor litigation
against BP.

The plaintiffs also sued James C. Hackett, then chief executive
officer of Anadarko, Robert G. Gwin, chief financial officer, and
Robert P. Daniels, senior vice president of exploration.  The
lawsuit, led by the pension funds of Virgin Islands retirees,
seeks to represent all investors in Anadarko from June 12, 2009,
to June 9, 2010.

The investors claim that Anadarko wasn't a passive partner in the
Macondo well.  Anadarko "expressly approved and funded a series of
extremely risky decisions made in connection with drilling the
well," investors' lawyers claim in the lawsuit.  These decisions
"contributed directly to the disaster," according to the
complaint.

                          Downplay Role

Once the spill occurred, Anadarko attempted to prop up its shares
by continuing to downplay its role in the project, the lawyers
said.

The shareholders claim that Anadarko assured investors in a May 4,
2010, conference call that the "potential liability (APC) for the
Macondo well would be relatively small, approximately $177.5
million, and fully covered by insurance -- when their true
exposure was in the billions of dollars."

"Investors were misled into believing this was going to be BP's
problem," their attorney, John Browne, said at the April 24
hearing. "They assuage investors' concerns and the stock goes up."
Three weeks later, when it becomes more clear "that Anadarko will
be on the hook for a lot more than we thought, the stock drops
another 20 percent or so," Mr. Browne said.

"This May 4 statement may be your best point," Judge Ellison told
lawyers at the hearing.

During that same call, statements that the company didn't look
into the details of the well plan and its responsibilities under
the joint operating agreement are false and constitute securities
fraud, Mr. Browne said.

                           After Spill

Investigating such matters "had to be all they were doing" in the
days after the spill, Mr. Browne said.

"You're saying he is reckless if he never looked at it and lying
if he said he didn't?" Judge Ellison said, referring to Daniels
speaking on the conference call.  "You're saying he may not have
known about this by April 19 but he certainly found out about it"
before the call?

Mr. Schwartz, Anadarko's lawyer, repeatedly said the company was a
passive investor that bore no fault for the blowout and that
investors can't place documents in the executives' hands that
prove they knew their statements were false.

"I don't think who was at fault that day is our question," Judge
Ellison told him.  The judge said the question is whether the
company's public statements were actionable by investors.

Judge Ellison took the lawyers' comments under advisement and said
he'd issue a written opinion later.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Says Ex-Employee Illegally Obtained Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that in a
new court filing, Anheuser-Busch Cos. alleges a former employee,
James Clark, who's behind multiple class action lawsuits alleging
the brewer waters down its beers, illegally obtained documents
from the company.

Because the documents were obtained illegally, A-B argues that its
breach of contract lawsuit against Mr. Clark should proceed.

A-B sued Mr. Clark in federal court in California in early March,
alleging Mr. Clark violated confidentiality agreements he signed
with the company.  After he left A-B in 2012, Mr. Clark instigated
class action lawsuits against the company, according to A-B, that
claim some of A-B's beer labels show higher alcohol content than
the products actually contain.  Those class action lawsuits are
pending.

In a court filing on April 22, A-B said it has evidence that
Mr. Clark obtained confidential information with a "wide range of
confidential or trade secret information about Anheuser-Busch's
beer specifications" according to the filing.  A-B also alleges
Mr. Clark wrongfully printed out the documents from a work
computer and saved them to a personal storage device.

"The evidence demonstrates that Clark violated numerous provisions
of the California Penal Code in misappropriating confidential and
trade secret information, and using it for his own personal gain,"
A-B states in its court filing.

Mr. Clark's attorney, Robert Carichoff, did not immediately return
calls for comment.

In a statement, A-B reiterated the brewer's claim that the class
action lawsuits against the company are groundless, and said
Mr. Clark researched California class action lawsuits on his
company computer while working for A-B.

"After leaving A-B, he immediately went to work with one of the
firms that he saw in this research, using confidential company
information that is being misrepresented, manipulated and
misused," A-B said in its statement.  "Although his name is
nowhere on the lawsuits, he has now admitted that he is behind
these unjustifiable class-actions that are being used to smear our
name and enrich himself and the other lawyers."

"We hold ourselves to high standards of conduct and quality at our
company, which Clark knew well and experienced fully as an
employee," A-B continued.   "In our mandatory code of conduct
training, he repeatedly verified that he knew of no inappropriate
activity by the company, and made this verification during and
after he graduated from law school.  If he felt a problem existed,
it was Clark's duty to report it at the time for investigating,
but Clark did not report anything, because there is nothing to
report."


ATLANTIC POWER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Atlantic
Power Corporation, has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of a class (the "Class") comprising all purchasers of Atlantic
Power common stock between July 23, 2010 and March 4, 2013,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who have losses of
$100,000 or more are encouraged to contact the firm for
information concerning a lead plaintiff position in the class
action suit and have until May 7, 2013 to file a motion with the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US BY PHONE TO DISCUSS THIS
ACTION OR TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AT (310) 201-9150,
TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773-9224, OR BY EMAIL AT
SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the Company and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Barry
Welch, made false and misleading statements regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's stock dividend, which was
regarded by the Company as one of its corporate objectives.

On February 28, 2013 the Company disclosed that it was cutting its
monthly dividend starting in March 2013 by more than 50%.
According to the Company, even though the Company's February 2013
dividend was C$0.09583, "the Board, with management's
recommendation, unanimously approved a reduction in the annual
dividend level to C$0.40 per share, or C$0.03333 per share on a
monthly basis."

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff no later than May 7, 2013;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to
learn more about this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters,
please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com


ATLANTIC POWER: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on April 23 disclosed that it has filed a class
action in the United District Court for District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Atlantic Power
Corporation during the class period of July 23, 2010 and March 4,
2013.  The complaint charges that Atlantic Power and its President
and Chief Executive Officer, Barry Welch, violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
regarding Atlantic Power's ability to continue to issue its common
stock dividend at the same level that it was paying to investors.

If you purchased Atlantic Power between July 23, 2010 and March 4,
2013, you may, no later than May 7, 2013, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of the
purported 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 purchased Atlantic Power and want more information about
the Atlantic Power lawsuit please contact George Pressly, Esq. at
1 (800) 631-6234 or e-mail Mr. Pressly at
AskGeorge@morgansecuritieslaw.com

The Complaint alleges that the sustainability of Atlantic Power's
stock dividend was regarded by the Company as one of its corporate
objectives.  On numerous occasions during the Class Period,
defendants stated they were studying cash flows and the
sustainability of a dividend.  Then, without any warning, on
February 28, 2013, in a press release, the company stated that in
order to "target a lower, more sustainable payout ratio that
balances yield and growth," the Board, with management's
recommendation was cutting Atlantic Power's common stock dividend.
The dividend was cut by more than 50% commencing with the March
2013 dividend, thus paying an annual dividend of only Cdn$0.40 per
share, down from Cdn$0.90 per share.  The market reacted
immediately and the price of Atlantic Power's common stock fell
from an opening price of $10.25 on February 28, 2012 to a closing
price of $7.12 on March 1, 2013, and a further drop on March 4 to
a $5.91 closing price, on trading volume of over 9 million shares.

                      About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan concentrates its practice in the areas of
securities fraud, stockbroker fraud, antitrust, personal injury,
consumer class actions, overtime, and product liability.

CONTACT: Morgan & Morgan
         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         28 West 44th Street
         Suite 2001
         New York, NY  10036
         Telephone: 1-800-631-6234
         E-mail: info@morgansecuritieslaw.com


BAYER CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mirena Intrauterine System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerato Zikalala, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that a
Nova Scotia woman is seeking to certify a class action against a
pharmaceutical giant over a birth control device that allegedly
went awry.  Amy Tudor of Westport has launched a case against
Bayer Corp. and several related companies over Mirena, a hormone-
releasing intrauterine system that's used to prevent pregnancy for
up to five years, according to court documents made public on
April 24.

A trained health-care provider inserted the device into Tudor on
Dec. 7, 2010, said documents filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

"On or about November 10, 2012, Amy Tudor attended the Digby
General Hospital and was advised she was pregnant," said the suit.

Three days later, an ultrasound confirmed the birth control device
had perforated her uterus and migrated into the lower area of her
cervix, it said.  Ms. Tudor has been advised she will require
laparoscopic surgery to remove it.

"The plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to
suffer from anxiety about their health because of the effect that
the Mirena Intrauterine System has on their lives," said the suit.

In an interview, Ms. Tudor said she's still pregnant and the
baby's due June 25.

"It's my third, so I know what to expect from pregnancies, but the
IUD's causing a lot of pain," she said.

"It's a weird thing.  It's like I'm being stabbed daily.  So I'm
not only being kicked and punched internally, now I feel like I'm
having stabbing pain.  So that was an unpleasant side effect."

She has a six-year-old daughter and a son who is two and a half.

"I didn't want a third child," she said.  "That's why I had an IUD
in. A lot of women may not openly say it, but I had a piece of
plastic stuck in there so I didn't have another child."

Ms. Tudor, who works as a clerk at Westport Branch Library and as
a substitute teacher's aid, said she's seeking awareness about
potential problems with the device.

"I had a couple of friends who were quite shocked and are having
theirs taken out, because as soon as you meet someone it happened
to, it's a whole different ball game," she said.

Ms. Tudor, 33, said her main motivation for the suit is not
financial compensation.  "Money would be nice, but it's in no way,
shape or form my driving factor."

Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Pharmaceuticals
Corp., Bayer Health Care, LLC, Bayer Inc., Bayer Schering Pharma
AG and Bayer AG are also named as defendants in the case.

"The business of each of the defendants is inextricably interwoven
with that of the other and each is the agent of the other for the
purposes of the research, development, designing, testing,
manufacturing, distributing, packaging, promoting, marketing, and
selling of the Mirena Intrauterine System in the United States and
Canada," said the notice of action.

A Bayer spokeswoman said the company has no knowledge of the
lawsuit in Canada and wouldn't comment.

None of the claims made in the suit have been tested in court.

"The defendants were aware of many complaints made to the Food and
Drug Administration and Health Canada regarding the perforation of
the uterine wall and migration of their Mirena products from the
uterus," said the suit.

"The perforation of the uterine wall often results in migration
from the uterus and often requires complicated, expensive and
painful treatment to correct."

But the defendants "consistently failed to disclose or warn
Canadian patients of the significant risk of adverse events of the
Mirena Intrauterine System.  The defendants knew or ought to have
known of the significant risks associated with the use of the
Mirena Intrauterine System."

Tudor and other women in the same situation who want to join a
class action against Bayer "have suffered pain, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of earnings and earnings capacity," said the suit,
which notes they are seeking special and general damages as a
result of using the contraceptive device.

Mirena has been available in Canada since 2001, court documents
said.  "It has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide."

Wagners Law Firm is representing Ms. Tudor.

Fifteen women from Nova Scotia have approached Wagners looking to
join the case if it is certified as a class action, said Mike
Dull, a lawyer with the Halifax firm.

"We would be seeking certification of a national class action out
of Nova Scotia," Mr. Dull said.

"The class of people who would fall under this litigation would
conceivably be all Canadians who have suffered perforation of
their uterine walls as a result of migration of the product.  That
could run into the thousands."

The product is still available, he said.  "It costs about $300 to
$400 every five years."

If Bayer is found liable, a judgment could run into tens of
millions of dollars, Dull said.

"But there's a lot of factors and it's way too early to assess
that," he said.

Courts in this province have been moving class action cases along
fairly quickly, Dull said.

"We're optimistic that probably within the next year or so we'll
be in a position to have the certification hearing," he said.


BLACK HILLS: Class Action Sought for Disability Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chet Brokaw, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
lawsuit alleging a Rapid City credit union and an insurance
company improperly raised the rates for insurance that makes loan
payments if borrowers become disabled should be handled as a class
action, a lawyer for those borrowers told the South Dakota Supreme
Court on April 23.

The lawsuit against the Black Hills Federal Credit Union and CUNA
Mutual Insurance Society must be handled as a class action because
it would be impossible for 4,461 borrowers to file individual
lawsuits for the amount of money involved, James Leach, a Rapid
City lawyer, said.

"There is no doubt the alleged wrong can only be remedied in a
class action," Mr. Leach told the Supreme Court.

But an attorney for the insurance company argued that the dispute
cannot be handled as a class action because each borrower would
have to testify about whether each had waited too long to sue.

"That is simply not a fair and efficient adjudication of a
controversy," Roger Heidenreich of St. Louis said.

A circuit judge had ruled that the lawsuit could not be handled as
a class action.  Mr. Leach asked the Supreme Court to overrule the
circuit judge and order that the case proceed as a class action.

The high court will decide the case later in a written ruling.

The lawsuit alleges that the credit union and insurance company
improperly changed the terms and rates for disability insurance
without giving borrowers sufficient notice.

Court documents indicate that people who borrowed money and bought
the disability insurance before July 1, 1999, had been told they
would be notified before any premium rate was increased.  The
lawsuit alleges that a quarterly advertising newsletter sent to
credit union members contained a notice that said the insurance
terms would change and premium rates would increase on July 1,
1999, but few people would be able to understand the change would
double the amount they would pay for the insurance.

Ed and Kathy Thurman of Rapid City discovered the change in 2009
when they decided to pay off their home equity loan early but
found out they owed more than $10,000 instead of $4,260, according
to court documents.  Their monthly payments had not changed, but
the loan was being paid off more slowly because more of the
payment was going to insurance rather than the loan principal.

The state Division of Insurance told CUNA it had acted illegally
because the newsletter notice did not comply with requirements.
The division then asked the insurance company to waive the extra
amount owed by the Thurmans, but the Thurmans instead filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of other borrowers.

Court documents indicate credit union officials were surprised
when they discovered the insurance change had substantially
increased the amount borrowers had to pay over the life of their
loans.

The credit union and insurance company argue that the borrowers
waited too long to sue because state law requires such claims to
be made within six years of an alleged wrong.  The borrowers
contend they can still sue because they have six years to file
after they discovered the wrong.

Mr. Heidenreich said such time limits are set in law because if
too much time elapses before a lawsuit is filed, people have died,
memories have faded and documents have been lost.

Leach said the notice placed in the credit union's newsletter was
insufficient to let people know about the insurance rate increase.

"You can't jack up that price by sending them an advertising
flier," Leach told the justices.  "Nobody has a duty to check
whether their bank has started to cheat them."

Mr. Heidenreich said the only issue before the Supreme Court is
whether the circuit judge made a reasonable decision in refusing
to let the case proceed as a class action.


BNSF RAILWAY: Antitrust Suit Reached Appeals Court
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Thomson Reuters News & Insight,
reported that a federal appeals court in Washington D.C. was
slated to consider on May 3 whether a multibillion-dollar
antitrust suit alleging four major U.S. freight rail operators
conspired to impose a uniform fuel charge on shipping customers,
can proceed as a class action.

BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation Inc, Norfolk Southern
Railway Company and Union Pacific Corporation are defendants in a
lawsuit alleging they conspired to impose a uniform fuel charge on
shipping customers from July 1, 2003, through Dec. 31, 2008. The
railroad companies have appealed a district court judge's decision
allowing some 30,000 direct customers, including the eight named
plaintiffs, to sue them collectively.

Both sides acknowledge that the potential damages in the case
could reach into the billions if the case continues as a class
action.

The appeal was to be heard by a three-judge panel on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The
argument was to feature two marquee-name lawyers. Carter Phillips
of Sidley Austin, one of the most prolific Supreme Court advocates
in the country, was to argue for the defendants. Stephen Neuwirth,
chair of the antitrust practice at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, was to argue for the plaintiffs.

A court's decision to allow a case to go forward as a class action
can put tremendous pressure on defendants to settle because of the
threat of greater damages being awarded. For that reason, the
standards to certify a class have drawn greater scrutiny from
courts in recent years and have been attacked aggressively by
corporate defendants.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of the
railroad companies, arguing a class certification decision in
favor of plaintiffs "almost always compels defendants to settle
even meritless cases."

                      JUDGE'S 'LAX' STANDARD

The decision on appeal was made by U.S. District Court Judge Paul
Friedman in Washington in June. In a 145-page opinion, Friedman
concluded that the plaintiffs had met all of the requirements for
certification established by Rule 23 in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which addresses class actions.

In their brief to the D.C. Circuit, the railroad companies argued
that Friedman imposed a "lax" standard that conflicts with
decisions by other appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs have countered that Friedman's decision scrutinized
"one of the largest evidentiary records ever compiled in
connection with a certification motion" and that the defendants'
claim of a circuit split is misplaced.

"It's an effort to create an issue where none exists," said
Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld, one of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers
in the case.

The railroad companies argue that Friedman erred when he allowed
certification of a class that included customers who were not
harmed by the alleged conspiracy. In his opinion, Friedman cited
case law that class certification can be granted where "widespread
injury" has been established by the plaintiffs. That standard, the
defendants argued, conflicts with at least four other appellate
circuit courts and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2011
landmark class certification ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.

Lawyers for the railroad companies wrote that their appeal
presents "an opportunity to clarify the law in this circuit and to
apply the proper standards to reverse the plainly inappropriate
certification of a multibillion-dollar class action that falls far
short of the requirements of Rule 23."

Phillips said in an interview that the case is particularly
significant because plaintiffs who have not suffered could recoup
money from the case.

"Having a substantial number of the class who have suffered no
injury becomes quite an important issue when you're talking about
millions of dollars," Phillips said.

                         SHADOW OF COMCAST

The railroad customers have argued in their briefs that the
defendants have tried to conjure up a legal dispute after losing
factual arguments at the district court. They point to Friedman's
opinion, which concluded that the surcharges imposed by the
railroad companies "were applied uniformly, to all or virtually
all class members."

In reality, the railroad companies are trying to relitigate issues
that were decided against them, lawyers for the plaintiffs have
argued. For example, the railroad companies raised a number of
arguments for why some class members were not injured. After
weighing expert opinions, Friedman ruled against them.

"That's the difficulty they have to overcome," Hausfeld said.

Phillips said the Supreme Court's most recent decision on class
certification will play in the defendants' favor. In March, in a
5-4 decision, the court found that cable subscribers who brought
an antitrust lawsuit against Comcast Corp had failed to tailor
their liability theory with a damages model that could be measured
for the entire class.

It is "pretty clear" that the shipping customers had failed to do
the same, said Phillips.

"I have no doubt that you will hear the word Comcast more than a
few times on [May 3]," he said.

The appeal is In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
Circuit, No. 12-7085.

For plaintiffs: Stephen Neuwirth of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan and Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld.

For defendants: Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin.


BP PLC: Lief Cabraser Offers Assistance in Submitting Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Alexander, a partner in the Nashville office of the
national plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, on April 25 disclosed that Lieff Cabraser is providing
assistance to businesses in submitting claims for compensation
under the Court-approved settlement with BP arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion on April 20, 2010 and the
subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We are committed to assisting eligible claimants receive
compensation for their post-spill losses, and have already helped
several of our clients obtain significant recoveries," stated Ms.
Alexander.  "Even businesses whose headquarters are located
outside of the Gulf may be eligible for compensation if they
maintain stores or physical operations in Louisiana, Alabama and
Mississippi, and certain counties in Texas and Florida."

If your business lost revenue in 2010 after the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill, Lieff Cabraser will evaluate your losses.  If you
qualify, we can assist you recovering your post-spill losses
through the settlement process. There is no charge or obligation
for our review of your potential claim.

Contact Lieff Cabraser toll free at 866-313-1973 or visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/BPGulfOilSpill

Lieff Cabraser has also released a video summarizing the BP Oil
Spill settlement program which can be seen on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FH3iUqDZLo

             Background on the BP Oil Spill Settlement

U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Barbier has approved two class
action settlements with BP that will fully compensate hundreds of
thousands of victims of the environmental disaster.  The
settlements resolve the majority of private economic loss,
property damage, and medical injury claims stemming from the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and hold BP fully accountable to
individuals and businesses harmed by the spill.

Under the settlements, there is no dollar limit on the amount BP
will pay.  BP must fully satisfy all qualified claims.  To date,
eligible businesses and individuals that suffered economic losses
or property damage have received over $1 billion through the
settlement claims program.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm with offices in Nashville, San Francisco, and New York.
Elizabeth J. Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
that is spearheading the BP Oil Spill litigation in federal court.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Health Minister in Dilemma Over Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Fayerman, writing for Vancounver Sun's Medicine Matters,
reports that Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid wasn't yet the health
minister when a Supreme Court judge certified a class action by BC
doctors against the provincial government last summer.  But she
was still in a conflicted position since she's a doctor, cabinet
minister and automatic member of the class action.  That is,
unless she had taken formal steps to legally opt out.

The conflict grew once she was named health minister last fall.
Yet, as the class action judge heard on April 22, Margaret
MacDiarmid missed last November's deadline to opt out of the $100
million class action lawsuit.

The suit is over fees doctors never got after treating patients
who were delinquent on their Medical Services Plan premiums.  They
contend the government stiffed them.  The government maintains it
had the authority to do that.

Dr. MacDiarmid is an indefatigable, earnest and highly regarded
politician now seeking re-election.  She now has to get
independent legal counsel to plead with the court so she can
belatedly opt out even though the trial is underway.

The doctors' (plaintiff) lawyer, Arthur Grant, said by being in
the class action suit, she's in a conflict since she's the health
minister, the government is the defendant, she's a family
physician, and the plaintiff group comprises all doctors of BC who
practiced on a fee for service basis during the time period from
1992 to 1996.

In the 1990s, Dr. MacDiarmid practiced medicine in Rossland.  She
was appointed health minister last fall.

If doctors win the suit, Dr. MacDiarmid conceivably stands to
benefit financially unless she is excluded.  Under the opting in
or out provisions, Dr. MacDiarmid should have given notice of her
decision to opt out of the lawsuit by Nov. 29, 2012.

Vancouver's Sun Ms. Fayerman said "In my humble opinion,
government lawyers (including those who are defending the
government in the suit) should have taken the required steps to
get Dr. MacDiarmid out of the suit.  It looks to me like they
dropped the ball."

"The matter may not have been on the busy health minister's radar.
But other doctors did meet the opt in/opt out deadline: one doctor
in Alberta who formerly practiced in BC, opted into the suit,
while another, who currently sits on the Medical Services
Commission, opted out.  Maybe the latter should have mentioned it
to MacDiarmid.

By court order, the class to which the suit applies is all doctors
who were practicing in BC between July 23, 1992 and April 30,
1996.  It excludes doctors who were members of the Medical
Services Commission at any time during that period.

Legal arguments over the common issues in the trial began on
April 22 but a judgment is not expected for months.

Dr. MacDiarmid's situation was the very first order of business.
Mr. Grant read a letter in court which he received from Dr.
MacDiarmid in April.  In it, Dr. MacDiarmid states 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 Madam Justice
Elaine Adair who certified the suit as a class action last summer.

Mr. Grant said in an interview that Dr. MacDiarmid is in an
"obvious conflict" as health minister and a member of the class
action:

On April 22, Dr. MacDiarmid said in a phone 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, but
she conceded this:

"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 should have advised 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 presented a difficulty, she said.

The government maintains it had the legal authority to drop BC
residents from the health insurance plan if they had failed to pay
their premiums.  Government documents show that there were up to
360,000 BC residents who weren't insured by MSP because of
nonpayment of premiums.  The de-enrolling of BC residents appeared
to proliferate under former NDP premier Mike Harcourt and subsided
under former premier Glen Clark.

Dr. James Halvorson, a Duncan emergency physician, is the lead
plaintiff in the class action suit.  He believes he's owed at
least $100,000.

In the 1990s, doctors had no way of knowing a patient's MSP
status.

Mr. Grant will argue that cancelling enrolment of BC 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.


CARSON'S DELI: Recalls Assorted Cookie Pack, Fudge Brownie Cookie
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carson's Deli & Bakery of Lockport, New York, is recalling 200
packages of ASSORTED COOKIE PACK, UPC 7 53182 15240 0, and FUDGE
BROWNIE COOKIES, UPC 7 53182 15240 0 because they contain
undeclared allergens.  Carson's Assorted Cookie Pack contains
undeclared walnuts, wheat flour, milk and peanut butter.  Carson's
Fudge Brownie Cookies contain undeclared walnuts, wheat flour and
soy lecithin.  People who have an allergy to any of these
ingredients run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The affected packages of cookies were distributed to five retail
stores in Niagara and Erie Counties in the state of New York.

The cookies are packaged in clear, hard plastic containers, NET
WT. 14 oz., with seven or eight cookies per container.  The
affected cookies have a "Sell by Date" of 4/26/2013 to 5/03/13.
The date code can be found on the white sticker label found on the
top of the plastic container.  Pictures of the recalled products
and labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm350277.htm

The firm was informed of one allergic complaint.

The recall was initiated after being informed of the consumer
complaint and upon discovering that the cookie products containing
walnuts were distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of walnuts.  FDA's inspection revealed that other
allergens were not declared on the labeling of the finished
products.  Subsequent firm's investigation indicates the problem
was caused as a result of insufficient labeling and packaging
processes.

Consumers who purchased the affected cookies are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 1-716-433-2248, Monday -
Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.


COYOTE UGLY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that an overtime pay laws class
action is grabbing headlines across the nation over claims of
unpaid overtime and alleged illegalities involving tip pools, but
also with regard to sensational claims appearing in social media,
related to the case.

The lawsuit has its roots in Nashville, but encompasses abuses
against California overtime law given the national status of the
lawsuit, which represents current and former employees of the
Coyote Ugly chain nationwide.

Coyote Ugly Saloon Development Corp. is one of three defendants in
the class-action lawsuit filed in Tennessee Middle District Court,
and involves claims of abuse of overtime laws through an alleged
requirement for employees to work off the clock, together with
claims the defendant allowed an illegal tip pool.

To that point, the plaintiffs take issue with an apparent policy
maintained by the defendant(s) that security guards employed by
the chain at their various locations are allowed to claim five
percent from gross tip receipts, according to an account appearing
in The Tennessean.

In situations where security personal participate as "barbacks" -
a term used variously to reference activities identified as
assisting bartenders, re-stocking bars (including the exchange of
beer kegs) and the cleaning of counters -- Coyote Ugly allegedly
allows them to claim 10 percent of the tip pool.

The defendant(s) in the unpaid overtime lawsuit argues that
security personnel undertake an important role for the facilities
at which they are employed, assisting clients and contributing to
the overall atmosphere of the themed bar.  Thus, the defense
argues, they are entitled to a share of tip receipts.

Testimony heard April 17 suggests there is more to this story
beyond issues surrounding overtime pay and tip pools.  To that
end, it appears as if the lawsuit may live up to the Coyote Ugly
name in more ways than one.

That's because plaintiff Sarah Stone, who served as a bartender-
dancer at a Coyote Ugly facility in Oklahoma City, is one of two
key plaintiffs seeking damages for alleged retaliation due to
their involvement in the class-action lawsuit.

Ms. Stone alleges that a regional manager employed at the Oklahoma
facility at the time made a threat against her in a status update
to his Facebook page.  Daniel Huckaby, who is now identified as
director of operations for the Coyote Ugly chain, admitted to
being intoxicated on the night he posted the alleged threat to
Facebook, and claimed not to recall undertaking the post at all.

Also seeking damages for retaliation is Misty Blu Stewart, the
plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit.  The former bartender-dancer
from Nashville testified that a blog entry posted by the CEO of
Coyote Ugly, Liliana Lovell, left Ms. Stewart ashamed and
"extremely embarrassed."  The blog post, to Lil Spill, allegedly
referenced Ms. Stewart in a derogatory way and appeared soon after
Ms. Stewart initiated the overtime pay lawsuit.

However, according to The Tennessean, Ms. Stewart's name did not
appear in the blog post.

Overtime pay laws remain an important protection for employees in
various industries, while workers compensation also serves as a
frustration for any employee when compensation benefits are
withheld, or unavailable due to an employer having insufficient
workers compensation coverage, or none at all.  Often, a lawsuit
is needed to pursue and secure the necessary workers compensation
settlements.

As for unpaid overtime, while some jobs are legally exempt from
overtime pay, employers have variously played fast and loose with
classification rules in an effort to escape the need to pay
overtime.

For most employers, overtime pay is a constant frustration due to
an inability to definitively forecast overtime.  Overtime budgets
struck as a necessary hedge against overtime as needed -- but not
used -- represents a pool of funds an employer might have put
toward something more tangible throughout the budget year.

For the employee, such an argument holds little value.  Work
performed beyond the standard work week requires prompt payment
under California overtime law, as well as similar laws in other
states together with federal statutes.

Plaintiffs in the Nashville-based class-action lawsuit claim that
unpaid overtime for working off the clock and tips claimed by
security personnel, translates to money that should have been paid
to the plaintiffs.  The lawsuit also names CUS Nashville, LLC and
Liliana Lovell, as defendants.

The case is Stewart v. CUS Nashville, LLC et al Case No. 3:11-cv-
00342.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Awaits Final OK of IPO-Related Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnergySolutions, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its
public 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.

On October 9, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit captioned
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. EnergySolutions,
Inc., et al., Civil No. 09 CV 8633 ("City of Roseville Lawsuit")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On October 12, 2009, a second complaint captioned
Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund vs. EnergySolutions,
Inc., et al., Civil No. 09 CV 8648 (together with the City of
Roseville Lawsuit, the "Related Actions") was filed in the same
court.  On February 18, 2010, the court consolidated the Related
Actions and appointed a lead plaintiff.  On April 20, 2010, the
lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint.  The
consolidated amended complaint names as defendants
EnergySolutions, Inc., certain of the Company's current and prior
directors, certain of its prior officers, the lead underwriters in
its November 2007 initial public offering ("IPO") and July 2008
secondary offering (the "July 2008 Offering") and ENV Holdings,
LLC, its former parent.

On June 18, 2010, the defendants in the Related Actions filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Rather than
oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed
a second consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2010,
expanding on certain allegations in the consolidated amended
complaint and adding certain new allegations.  The plaintiffs
bring claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") against all
defendants and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants
except the underwriter defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that the
Company's registration statements and prospectuses and other
public disclosures in connection with the IPO and July 2008
Offering contained misstatements and/or omissions of material
fact.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
made material misstatements and/or omissions relating to five
categories of the Company's business: life of plant contracts,
opportunities in the shut-down nuclear reactor market, the Zion
Station project, the Company's rule making petition to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission ("NRC") to permit the use of decommissioning
funds for disposal of major components prior to the cessation of
activities at nuclear facilities and global macroeconomic
conditions.  The plaintiffs seek to include all purchasers of the
Company's common stock from November 14, 2007, through October 14,
2008, as a plaintiff class and seek damages, costs and interest,
rescission of the IPO and July 2008 offering and such other relief
as the court may find just and proper.

On September 17, 2010, the defendants in the Related Actions filed
a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.
The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion
to dismiss on November 2, 2010, and the defendants filed a reply
memorandum of law in further support of defendants' motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint on December 10,
2010.  On June 16, 2011, the court heard oral argument on the
motion to dismiss.  On September 30, 2011, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint.  Specifically, the court,
among other things, dismissed all claims against all defendants
relating to the alleged material misstatements and/or omissions
relating to the state of the Zion Station project and the
potential adverse effects of general macroeconomic conditions and
dismissed certain other claims against certain defendants.
Further, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims related to the alleged material misstatements and/or
omissions relating to life of plant contracts, opportunities in
the shut-down nuclear reactor market and the Company's rule making
petition to the NRC.

On October 12, 2012, the Company and the plaintiffs in the Related
Actions reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims
made by the plaintiffs in their complaint underlying the
proceeding.  The agreement does not contain an admission of guilt
or other wrongdoing on the part of the Company, or its officers,
directors or affiliates.  The confidential settlement arrangement,
the final terms of which is subject to customary court approvals,
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  The
court signed an order preliminarily approving the settlement on
December 3, 2012.  A hearing for final approval of the settlement
was scheduled for March 15, 2013.

EnergySolutions, Inc. -- http://www.energysolutions.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.  The Company is a provider of a broad range of nuclear
services to government and commercial customers, which services
include engineering, in-plant support services, spent nuclear fuel
management, decontamination and decommissioning, operation of
nuclear reactors, logistics, transportation, processing and low-
level radioactive waste disposal.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Del. & Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnergySolutions, Inc., is defending itself against merger-related
class action lawsuits in Delaware and Utah, 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 January 7, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Rockwell Holdco, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Rockwell Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub").  Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Energy
Capital Partners II, LP and its parallel funds (together with its
affiliates, "Energy Capital Partners"), a leading private equity
firm focused on investing in North America's energy
infrastructure.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Merger Sub
will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger") and the
Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

Following the Company's January 7, 2013 announcement that it had
entered into a Merger Agreement providing for the acquisition of
the Company by Parent, an entity formed by Energy Capital
Partners, ten purported class action lawsuits were brought against
the Company, the members of its board of directors, Energy Capital
Partners II, LLC, Parent and Merger Sub.  Six lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Printz v. Rogel, et
al., C.A. No. 8302-VCG (January 10, 2013); Bushansky v.
EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8210 (January 11, 2013);
Danahare v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8219 (January
15, 2013); Graham v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al. (January 15,
2013), and Lebron v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8223
(January 15, 2013); Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8350
(February 22, 2013), (the "Delaware actions").  On January 19,
2013, the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the
Delaware actions as In re EnergySolutions, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 8203-VCG.  On January 28, 2013,
the Court of Chancery entered an Order of Class Certification and
Case Management which, among other things, certified a non opt-out
class of EnergySolutions stockholders consisting of all persons
who held shares of stock of EnergySolutions (excluding defendants
named in the Delaware actions and their immediate family members,
any entity controlled by any of the defendants, and any successors
in interest thereto) at any time during the period from and
including January 7, 2013, through the date of consummation or
termination of the Merger.

On March 15, 2013, without admitting any wrongdoing and to avoid
the burden, expense and disruption of continued litigation,
EnergySolutions, Inc., the members of the Company's board of
directors, Energy Capital Partners II, LLC, Parent and Merger Sub
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in
the Delaware actions providing for the settlement in principle of
the claims brought by the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the Company included
additional disclosures in its proxy statement requested by the
plaintiffs in the Delaware actions.  The parties to the Delaware
actions are in the process of documenting the settlement and will
present the settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery for
approval when that documentation is complete.  In approving the
settlement, the Delaware Court of Chancery may also require the
Company to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees, the amount of which has
not been determined.

The other four lawsuits were filed in the Utah State District
Court, Third Judicial District, Salt Lake County, and are titled
Mohammed v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., No. 130400388
(January 10, 2013); Luck v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al. No.
130900256 (January 11, 2013); Braiker v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et
al., No. 130900573 (January 25, 2013); and Temmler v.
EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., No. 130900684 (January 31, 2013),
(the "Utah actions").  On February 1, 2013, the Company and
certain defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay, or in the
Alternative for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint in the
Luck action, seeking to dismiss or stay the action in deference to
the Delaware actions.

Collectively, the Delaware actions and Utah actions generally
allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger because the merger
consideration is unfair, that certain other terms in the Merger
Agreement are unfair, and that certain individual defendants are
financially interested in the Merger.  Some of the actions further
allege that Energy Capital Partners, Parent and Merger Sub aided
and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Among other
remedies, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the Merger, or in the event
that an injunction is not awarded, unspecified money damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company believes that each of the
Delaware actions and Utah actions is without merit, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted
to the extent not yet resolved.

The Company believes the legal claims alleged against it in the
complaints are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
these actions to the extent not yet resolved.

EnergySolutions, Inc. -- http://www.energysolutions.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.  The Company is a provider of a broad range of nuclear
services to government and commercial customers, which services
include engineering, in-plant support services, spent nuclear fuel
management, decontamination and decommissioning, operation of
nuclear reactors, logistics, transportation, processing and low-
level radioactive waste disposal.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS INC: Still Awaits Ruling in "Pennington" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, EnergySolutions, Inc. entered into an
arrangement, through its subsidiary ZionSolutions, LLC
("ZionSolutions"), with Exelon Generation Company ("Exelon") to
dismantle Exelon's Zion nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois
("Zion Station"), which ceased operation in 1998.

On July 14, 2011, four individuals, each of whom are electric
utility customers of Commonwealth Edison Company, the former owner
of the Zion Station ("Com Ed"), filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, against ZionSolutions LLC and Bank of New York Mellon,
the trustee of the Zion Station decommissioning trust ("NDT")
fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Pennington et al. v.
ZionSolutions, LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs claim that payments from the NDT fund to
ZionSolutions for decommissioning the Zion Station are in
violation of Illinois state law, Illinois state law entitles the
utility customers of Com Ed to payments (or credits) of a portion
of the NDT fund and that Bank of New York Mellon was
inappropriately appointed by ZionSolutions as trustee of the NDT
fund.  The plaintiffs seek to enjoin and recover payments from the
NDT fund to ZionSolutions, that payments (or credits) of a portion
of the NDT fund be made to utility customers of Com Ed, the
appointment of a new trustee over the NDT fund, an accounting from
Bank of New York Mellon of all assets and expenditures from the
NDT fund and costs and attorneys fees.  The plaintiffs also seek
class action certification for their claims.

On September 13, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claims.  The motion has been fully briefed and
submitted to the court for a decision.  No decision has been
rendered by the court.

No further updates were reported in 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.

EnergySolutions, Inc. -- http://www.energysolutions.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.  The Company is a provider of a broad range of nuclear
services to government and commercial customers, which services
include engineering, in-plant support services, spent nuclear fuel
management, decontamination and decommissioning, operation of
nuclear reactors, logistics, transportation, processing and low-
level radioactive waste disposal.


EVO ISRAEL: Woman Claims Olive Oil Unfit for Human Consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yasmin Gueta and Nati Tucker, writing for Haaretz, reports that
a woman petitioned the court to approve a class-action suit
against the company Evo Israel, which she alleges sold olive oil
unfit for human consumption.  Rami Levy, owner of the supermarket
chain, says he does not think the suit will succeed.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Action Settlement Approval Overturned
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 22
overturned a lower court's approval of a $45 million class action
settlement involving the three major credit-reporting agencies.

The court said the agreement was unfair because $5,000 incentive
awards for class representatives were improperly conditioned on
their support for the settlement and were excessive relative to
what many class members would receive.  The settlement reportedly
would have been the second-largest ever in a case involving the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The plaintiffs, individuals who had gone through bankruptcy, sued
Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Systems
Inc. and TransUnion LLC in 2005 and 2006 -- the cases were
consolidated in the trial court -- claiming violations of the FCRA
and California law.  The complaints alleged the defendants had
illegally reported debts after they were discharged, in many
instances preventing the debtors from obtaining loans, housing
rentals, or jobs.

A settlement on non-monetary relief, under which the defendants
agreed to new procedures that would presume the discharge of
certain pre-bankruptcy debts, was reached in 2008 and drew no
objections.  The monetary settlement that was the subject of the
April 22 ruling was reached in 2009.

                   $45 Million Settlement Fund

Under the agreement, the three defendants would have contributed
$45 million to a settlement fund.  After payment of expenses --
including more than $16.7 million in attorney fees -- and
incentive awards, any absent class members claiming actual damages
would receive between $150 and $750 each depending on the type of
damage they were claiming, while those who submitted claim forms
but did not allege actual damages would receive "convenience"
payments.

About 15,000 claims for actual damages were received.  More than
750,000 people claimed the convenience payments, which would have
come to $26 each.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of
California found the settlement to be fair and adequate.

But Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit,
distinguished the agreement from class-action settlements with
incentive awards that the court had approved in the past.

The requirement that plaintiffs support approval of the settlement
in order to collect the enhanced payments created a "patent
divergence of interests" between the representatives and the
represented, the judge said.

"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," Judge Gould said.

                       Conflict of Interest

The potential awards also created a conflict of interest for class
counsel, the judge wrote, because they "divorced the interests of
the class representatives from those of the absent class members."

The case was sent back to the District Court for further
proceedings.

In a footnote, Judge Gould said the attorneys should not receive
fees for representation during the period in which the conflict of
interest existed.  But the district judge may award fees for "any
non-conflicted representation that created a benefit for the
class."

Judge Kim M. Wardlaw concurred in the opinion.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon of Montana, sitting by designation,
concurred in the reversal but argued in a separate opinion that
class counsel should get no fees at all.

Their "actions in orchestrating and advocating the disparate
incentive award scenario without any concern for, or even
recognition of, the obvious conflicts presented underscore . . .
that class counsel were singularly committed to doing whatever was
expedient" in order to get a huge fee award, Judge Haddon said.

"Such adherence to self-interest, coupled with the obvious
fundamental disregard of responsibilities to all class members --
members who had little or no real voice or influence in the
process -- should not find favor or be rewarded at any level,"
Judge Haddon wrote.

The case is Radcliffe v. Experian Information Systems Inc.,
11-56376.


FAMILY DOLLAR: 10th Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Family Dollar Stores of
Colorado, Inc. have filed a petition for permission to appeal a
district court oral ruling granting class certification, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) and Fed. R. App. P. 5.

Plaintiff Julie Farley has filed a response and Family Dollar has
filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its
petition, along with a proposed reply.

On April 25, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit denied Family Dollar's petition for permission to
appeal but granted its motion for leave to file a reply.

According to the Tenth Circuit, a party seeking class
certification must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b). In making a class certification ruling, a district
court must conduct a rigorous analysis to ensure that all of Rule
23's requirements are met. Family Dollar petitions for
interlocutory review principally on the ground that the district
court's ruling was manifestly erroneous under Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), arguing that the district
court failed to address how evidence common to the proposed class
established that the commonality and predominance requirements of
Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(3) were satisfied as required by that case.

Upon careful consideration of the petition, response, and proposed
reply, the materials filed with the court, and the applicable law,
the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court's class
certification ruling is not appropriate for interlocutory review.

"We find the district court's oral ruling sparse and note that the
lack of a written order, with the legal citation and thorough
analysis such usually engenders, inhibits our ability to assess
the propriety of the district court's decision. In the future, we
urge the district court to articulate in writing an in-depth
analysis as to each of Rule 23's requirements. Nevertheless, we
cannot say that the district court's class certification decision
in this case presents any of the concerns previously identified by
this court as meriting interlocutory review.  Moreover, we are
cognizant that the district court may amend its certification
order or decertify the class altogether at any point prior to
final judgment if it determines that its predictions regarding
satisfaction of the requirements of Rule 23 were inaccurate,"
ruled the three-judge panel composed of Chief Judge Mary Beck
Briscoe and Circuit Judges Carlos F. Lucero and Harris L Hartz.

The case before the Appeals Court is captioned FAMILY DOLLAR
STORES INC.; FAMILIY DOLLAR STORES OF COLORADO, INC., Petitioners,
v. JULIE FARLEY, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, Respondent, No. 13-704.

A copy of the Appeals Court's April 25, 2013 order is available at
http://is.gd/pxxRJdfrom Leagle.com.


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
First California Financial Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum
of understanding in March 2013 to settle a merger-related class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 18, 2013, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 6, 2012, First California entered into the Merger
Agreement with PacWest Bancorp.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the Company will be merged with and into PacWest, with
PacWest as the surviving corporation (the PacWest Merger).  The
Merger Agreement also provides that, simultaneously with the
PacWest Merger, the Company's bank subsidiary, First California
Bank, will merge with and into Pacific Western Bank, a wholly
owned subsidiary of PacWest, with Pacific Western Bank continuing
as the surviving bank.

On November 20, 2012, a purported stockholder of First California
filed a lawsuit in connection with the PacWest Merger.  Captioned
Paul Githens v. C.G. Kum, et al., Case No. BC496018, the lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County, against First California, its directors, and
PacWest.  The lawsuit is brought as a putative class action and
alleges that the Company's directors breached certain alleged
fiduciary duties to its stockholders by approving the Merger
Agreement pursuant to an allegedly unfair process and at an
allegedly unfair price.  It alleges that PacWest aided and abetted
those breaches.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the PacWest Merger.  On January 24, 2013, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims that the
defendants failed to disclose material information in connection
with the PacWest Merger.  On March 4, 2013, the court sustained
the defendants' demurrers to the plaintiff's complaint with leave
to amend.  A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction was scheduled for March 19, 2013.

                    MOU to Settle the Lawsuit

First California Financial Group, Inc. and PacWest Bancorp have
reached an agreement in principle to settle a putative class
action lawsuit.

On March 17, 2013, First California and PacWest entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff in the Action
regarding the settlement of the Action.  In connection with the
settlement of the Action, First California has agreed to make the
following supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental
Disclosures") to the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
First California filed with the SEC on February 13, 2013 (the
"Proxy Statement").

The memorandum of understanding also contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to First California's
stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Superior Court of the State of California will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to First California's
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the
Superior Court of the State of California for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by First California or its
successor.  The settlement will not affect the consideration that
First California's stockholders are entitled to receive in the
merger.  There can be no assurance that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement, or that the court will approve
any proposed settlement.  In such event, the proposed settlement
as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be
terminated.

The Company says the settlement will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of First California stockholders, or the amount of
the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of First
California in connection with the proposed transaction.  The
settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of
wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.  First California,
PacWest and the directors of First California continue to believe
that the Action is without merit and vigorously deny the
allegations that First California's directors breached their
fiduciary duties.  Likewise, neither First California, PacWest nor
the directors of First California believe that any disclosures
regarding the Merger are required under applicable laws other than
that which has already been provided in the Proxy Statement.
Furthermore, nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this
"Report") or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth
in this Report.  However, to avoid the risk of the putative
stockholder class action delaying or adversely affecting the
Merger, to minimize the substantial expense, burden, distraction
and inconvenience of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the claims, First California has agreed to make these
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement.

First California Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.fcalgroup.com/-- is a bank holding company
incorporated in Delaware in 2006 and headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.  First California's primary function is to
coordinate the general policies and activities of its bank
subsidiary, First California Bank, as well as to consider from
time to time other legally available investment opportunities.


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. Bank Settled for $500 in February
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against the bank subsidiary of First
California Financial Group, Inc., was settled for $500 in February
2013, 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 February 2011, First California Bank was named as a defendant
in a putative class action alleging that the manner in which the
Bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts
breached an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing and
violates the California Unfair Competition Law.  The action also
alleged that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its
consumer demand deposit accounts is unconscionable, constitutes
conversion and unjustly enriches the Bank.  The case was settled
with the plaintiff in February 2013 for a settlement payment of
$500 plus the plaintiff's attorney fees.

First California Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.fcalgroup.com/-- is a bank holding company
incorporated in Delaware in 2006 and headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.  First California's primary function is to
coordinate the general policies and activities of its bank
subsidiary, First California Bank, as well as to consider from
time to time other legally available investment opportunities.


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Exaggerated Fuel Efficiency Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
two Pennsylvania consumers are suing Ford on behalf of tens of
thousands of new car buyers who allegedly were misled into buying
hybrid vehicles they later learned were much less efficient than
advertised.

William Huff, Charles and Lori Zafonte, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Ford Motor Company on April 23 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Aware of the need to offer consumers better fuel economy in order
to remain competitive, according to the lawsuit, Ford Motor
Company has declared its intention to become "America's most fuel-
efficient auto manufacturer."  To help reach this goal, Ford
released the 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid and 2013 Ford C-Max, both of
which Ford allegedly claims achieve a fuel economy rating of 47
miles per gallon.

Mr. Huff and the Zafontes say they are among tens of thousands of
customers who purchased a Ford Fusion Hybrid or C-Max Hybrid
believing it to be "America's most fuel-efficient midsize sedan,"
as indicated in literature distributed by Ford.  The plaintiffs
say promotional brochures created by Ford to advertise these
hybrid vehicles tout a fuel economy double that of the average
vehicle.

In December 2012 Consumer Reports announced that its testing
showed the Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid provided significantly
worse fuel economy than what Ford had stated in advertisements and
on window stickers required by the Environmental Protection Agency
on new vehicles being sold, the complaint says.  Consumer Reports
allegedly showed the vehicles to achieve 37 to 39 miles per gallon
-- as much as 12 miles per gallon less than advertised.

Mr. Huff and the Zafontes say other independent testing routinely
shows the vehicles failing to break the 40 mile per gallon
threshold.  They claim Ford's inaccurate fuel economy
representations mean consumers did not receive what they were
promised and, therefore, purchased a car less valuable and more
costly to drive than the manufacturer represented.

The plaintiffs contend Ford's alleged overstatement of facts had
the desired effect: record-setting sales of the Fusion Hybrid and
C-Max Hybrid vehicles.  They say the company knew or should have
known it was using false information to drive those sales.

Mr. Huff and the Zafontes have brought this action on behalf and
themselves and anyone who purchased or leased a 2013 Ford Fusion
Hybrid or 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid in Pennsylvania.  They accuse
Ford of violating Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law for allegedly misrepresenting the vehicles as
having benefits they do not have and as complying with a specific
standard they do not meet.

Ford is also accused of unjust enrichment and fraud for allegedly
making "false representations and untrue statements . . .
recklessly and without regard to truth."  Huff and the Zafontes
contend those statements caused consumers to buy a vehicle they
otherwise would not have purchased.  They say they overpaid for
the vehicles they received and were forced to pay more for fuel
than expected because of the lower fuel economy.

The plaintiffs are asking actual, compensatory and punitive
damages be awarded to members of the Class.  They request
restitution equal to all money paid to Ford as a result of the
alleged deceptive business practices.  They are also demanding an
order enjoining Ford from continuing unlawful conduct.

Attorneys Scott Alan George, of Philadelphia, and David Stein,
Eric H. Gibbs, Geoffrey A. Munroe and Scott Grzenczyk, all of San
Francisco, represent the Class.  They demand a jury trial.

US District Court Case No. 5:13-cv-02168-JKG


GLOBALFOUNDRIES: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Rulison, writing for Times Union, reports that two downstate
law firms are trying to bring a class-action lawsuit against
GlobalFoundries, alleging that the company doesn't pay overtime to
its hourly workers at its Malta computer chip factory.

A Fulton County man, David Falvo, is the lead plaintiff in the
case, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Utica.  Mr. Falvo
is represented by Denlea & Carton LLP and Klafter Olsen & Lesser
LLP, both of Westchester County.

According to the suit, Mr. Falvo worked for GlobalFoundries from
August 2010 to March 2012 as an IT, or information technology,
worker.  According to his resume on LinkedIn, Mr. Falvo was
involved in the start-up of the company's computer chip factory in
Malta and helped set up a voice and videoconferencing network that
connected GlobalFoundries' U.S. offices, including the Malta fab.

Mr. Falvo, who lives in Caroga Lake outside Gloversville and
attended Siena College, currently works for Time Warner Cable as a
sales engineer, according to LinkedIn.

His lawyers claim that GlobalFoundries doesn't pay overtime to
hourly workers and expects them to respond to emails and work
assignments sent to them on company-issued BlackBerry devices even
when they are on vacation.  The suit also alleges that hourly
workers aren't paid for travel time and that the work they do away
from the office is not calculated as part of the company's bonus
program.  Mr. Falvo's attorneys believe that at least 100 current
and former GlobalFoundries workers in New York state could be
covered by the lawsuit.

"GlobalFoundries only paid for time worked at the job site," the
lawsuit states.

The lawsuit does not say how much Mr. Falvo earned or how much
exactly he could be owed under the lawsuit.  It also doesn't say
if those likely to be covered by the class-action were all in the
IT department or if other workers such as clean room technicians
involved in manufacturing experienced similar issues.

Class-action lawsuits represent a large group of plaintiffs who
want to sue a company.  Their lawyers must justify the case before
it can move forward.  Since the case involving GlobalFoundries was
recently filed, that decision has not yet been reached.

GlobalFoundries spokesman Travis Bullard said the company does not
comment on pending litigation.  Seth Lesser, the attorney who
appears to represent be the lead plaintiffs in the case, could not
immediately be reached for comment.

GlobalFoundries employs 2,000 people at its fab in Malta and also
has engineers, scientists and other workers at the College of
Nanoscale Science and Engineering in Albany and at IBM's chip fab
in East Fishkill.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Amend Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on the lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their consolidated
securities class action complaint to add more defendants,
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.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming the Company and certain of its now former officers, Curry
v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.  The complaint
asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008, and October 18,
2009, inclusive, and alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to make disclosures regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of Company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the Company's stock price; and that
following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement, the price
of the Company's stock declined.

On November 4, 2009, and November 13, 2009, substantively
identical complaints were filed in the Northern District of
California by other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the
same claims on behalf of the same putative class of Hansen
stockholders, Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No.
09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-
05367.  All three complaints seek certification as a class action
and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys
fees.  On December 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders,
Mina and Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as
lead plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions.  On
February 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and
Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and
consolidating the three securities class actions.  On July 15,
2010, the Court entered an order granting lead plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.  Lead plaintiffs'
second amended complaint, in addition to alleging that
shareholders suffered damages as a result of the decline in the
Company's stock price following the October 19, 2009 announcement,
also alleges that shareholders suffered additional damages as the
result of share price declines on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009,
January 8, 2009, July 6, 2009, and August 4, 2009, all of which
lead plaintiffs allege were caused by the disclosure of what they
claim was previously misrepresented information.  The Defendants
filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
October 13, 2010.  The Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave to amend on August 25, 2011.  The Plaintiffs'
third amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2011.  The
Defendants filed their motions to dismiss on January 9, 2012.  On
August 10, 2012, the Court denied in part and granted in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.

On January 4, 2013, the lead plaintiffs sought leave to amend
their complaint to add certain of Hansen's current and former
directors and Hansen's former auditor.  Hansen filed an opposition
to the lead plaintiffs' motion on February 11, 2013, and the
matter was set for hearing on April 18, 2013.

The Company and the named former officers intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any
expenses in the pending securities law class action but it is
possible that those expenses could be significant.  No amounts
have been accrued for any of the preceding actions based on the
uncertainly of the outcomes.  However, depending on the outcome of
the action, the Company may be required to pay material damages
and fines, or suffer other penalties, remedies or sanctions.  The
ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position
and liquidity.

Hansen Medical, Inc. -- http://www.hansenmedical.com/-- develops,
manufactures, and sells medical robotics designed for positioning,
manipulation, and control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies.  The Company's products comprise the Sensei Robotic
Catheter System and its related Artisan and Lynx catheters.  The
Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Mountain View,
California.


HARVEST NATURAL: 2 Law Firms File Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law firms Block & Leviton LLP and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
have filed separate class action lawsuits against Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The Block & Leviton lawsuit is captioned Myers v. Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-1139.

The lawsuits purport to represent a class comprising all
purchasers of Harvest securities between May 7, 2010 and March 18,
2013, inclusive.  The lawsuits assert that Harvest made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's internal financial
controls and its accounting for certain lease maintenance costs.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that: (1) HNR incorrectly
capitalized certain lease maintenance costs and internal selling,
general and administrative costs; (2) HNR improperly presented
cash flow items and caused certain long-lived assets to be
impaired; and (3) HNR was unable to sell its interests in
Petrodelta S.A. to PT Pertamina (Persero).  Because of these false
statements, HNR will likely be required to restate its financial
statements years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Shortly after the release of the news regarding the Company's
inability to sell its interests in Petrodelta S.A., shares of HNR
declined $3.71 per share or 40.5%, to close at $5.45 per share.
Following the announcement of the potential restatement, HNR
shares declined an additional $1.79 per share or more than 32%, to
close at $3.70 per share.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than May 21,
2013, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
Class.

Block & Leviton may be reached through Steven Harte, Esq., at
(617) 398-5600 or Steven@blockesq.com  Block & Leviton LLP --
http://www.blockesq.com-- a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide,

Glancy Binkow may be reached through Michael Goldberg, Esquire,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by telephone at (310) 201-9150, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-
mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

Harvest, an independent energy company, engages in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and disposition
of oil and natural gas properties.


HERSHEY CO: Judge Refuses to Certify Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that California U.S.
District Judge Kandis A. Westmore refused on April 23 to certify a
statewide class of Hershey Co. retail sales reps who claim they
were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, citing concerns
over the lack of action taken by potential class members in a
parallel opt-in collective action.


HILLERICH & BRADSBY: Recalls 13,000 Louisville Slugger OneX Bats
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hillerich & Bradsby Co. of Louisville, Kentucky, announced a
voluntary recall of about 13,000 Louisville Slugger(R) OneX
Fastpitch softball bats.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bat's barrel can separate from the handle during use and
strike people nearby.

Approximately 170 bat handle separations have been reported to the
Company.  The Company is aware of one report of a barrel from a
broken bat hitting a player in the shin.

The recalled bats include all OneX style bats.  The composite bat
has a white and grey shell with blue and yellow lettering.
"Louisville Slugger oneX" appears twice on the barrel, in yellow
in one place and in blue lettering on the other side.  The "X" is
yellow in both places.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/Xw04PX

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  The bats were
sold nationwide at sporting goods, other retail stores and
distributed to college amateur competitive softball teams from
approximately May 2012 through February 2013 for about $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bat and contact
Hillerich & Bradsby for a free replacement bat and the choice of
an additional free item.  Hillerich & Bradsby may be reached at
(800) 282-2287 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday or online at http://www.slugger.com/and click on
Recall for more information.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Howard Smith Firm Files Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising
all purchasers of the common stock of Impax Laboratories, Inc.
("Impax" or the "Company") between June 6, 2011 and March 4, 2013,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who have losses of
$100,000 or more are encouraged to contact the firm for
information concerning a lead plaintiff position in the class
action suit and have until May 6, 2013 to file a motion with the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements in connection with
manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Hayward, California,
facility, including the impact these deficiencies would have on
the Company's ability to gain FDA approval for its drug RytaryTM.

On March 4, 2013 the Company announced that the FDA had completed
an inspection of the Hayward facility. According to the Company,
the FDA found twelve problems at the Hayward facility that the
Company needed to correct and, due to continuing manufacturing
deficiencies, Impax did not expect to be able to launch its
RytaryTM drug until 2014. On this news, shares of Impax declined
$5.20 per share, or 26%, to close at $14.80 per share on March 5,
2013, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you have certain
rights, and have until May 6, 2013 to move for lead plaintiff
status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action
at this time, or may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to
discuss this action or learn more concerning your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


ITALIAN COLORS: Womble Carlyle Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Numbers II, Esq. at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
PLLC reports that recently, the United States Supreme Court heard
oral argument in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, a case that will have a substantial impact on the
enforceability of arbitration agreements that contain class action
waivers.  Italian Colors picks up where the Supreme Court left off
in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepci˘n when a sharply divided Supreme
Court held that a state law purporting to invalidate class action
waivers in arbitration agreements was preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act.

Here, the Supreme Court is confronting the question of whether, as
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "federal
substantive law of arbitrability" can invalidate class action
waivers in arbitration agreements when the underlying claims are
based on federal law.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
determined that federal law required the invalidation of the class
action waiver because the cost of litigation compared to the
relatively minimal amount of potential damages would effectively
prohibit plaintiffs from pursuing their federal claims.
Concepci˘n did not compel a different result, according to the
Second Circuit, because in that case there was no showing that
"the practical effect of the enforcement would be to preclude [the
plaintiff class's] ability to vindicate their statutory rights."

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have a substantial
impact on the viability of class action waivers contained in
arbitration clauses.  If the Second Circuit's ruling is upheld, it
will provide plaintiffs with a way around the limitations of
Concepci˘n if they are able to show that litigating a matter on an
individual basis would be prohibitively expensive.  A decision
reversing the Second Circuit would give business owners a greater
ability to avoid complex and expensive class action litigation
through carefully worded arbitration agreements.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case before the end of
June 2013.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls Children's Tylenol Sold in South Korea
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Rockoff of The Wall Street Journal reports that
Johnson & Johnson, still struggling to overcome manufacturing
problems that have dogged it for more than three years, is
recalling all bottles of Children's Tylenol that it made and sold
in South Korea after finding high levels of the main ingredient, a
Company spokeswoman said.

The recall doesn't affect any products sold in the U.S.

J&J's Janssen Korea unit withdrew 1.7 million bottles of
Children's Tylenol in South Korea on April 23, 2013, after routine
quality-control testing detected concentrations of the key
ingredient, acetaminophen, that were "slightly out of
specification" in some bottles, said the Company spokeswoman.

J&J said the health risk is remote, and it hasn't received any
reports of harm.

The New Brunswick, New Jersey health-products company said it
traced the problem to the failure of the machines that fill the
bottles at the end of manufacturing runs, the spokeswoman said.
Some of the remaining bottles were filled by hand, leading to the
improper concentrations, she said.

Janssen Korea Ltd. said in a statement the Company has corrected
the problem and promised it will do its best to prevent the
recurrence of such a problem.

"We offer a sincere apology to the Korean people and parents with
children in particular for causing a concern," the statement
posted on its Web site said.  "We'll actively cooperate with the
Korean government's investigation with regard to this case."

Seoul's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety said it has begun looking
into the case and will punish the Company if any violation of drug
and medicine regulations is found.

The recall is the latest setback to the Company's efforts to move
past production problems that have weighed on it since 2009,
costing it hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, damaging
its reputation with consumers and drawing the close scrutiny of
government health regulators.  To revive its image in the U.S.,
J&J is scheduled to launch a corporate branding campaign next
week.

The production snafus have affected products ranging from blood-
sugar meters to hip-implant parts, although they have occurred
mostly in over-the-counter medicines including allergy treatment
Zyrtec and pain reliever Motrin.  Some of these popular remedies
were recalled due to problems that included a musty smell and the
presence of metal shavings, as well as excessive concentrations of
the key ingredient.

In South Korea, J&J made the recalled Children's Tylenol at a
plant three hours south of Seoul, in a city called Hwaseong.  A
routine quality-control inspection detected the undue
concentrations in late March, and after a Company investigation,
J&J reported the problem to South Korean drug regulators on
April 22, 2013, the spokeswoman said.

The plant has temporarily halted production of the recalled
Tylenol as J&J works with the regulators "to review and address
their findings," the spokeswoman said.  So far, J&J has retrieved
more than 90% of the recalled bottles, and expects to complete the
process within two weeks, the spokeswoman said.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Napoli Bern Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, Hanly Conroy
Bierstein Sheridan Fish & Hayes LLP, and Katz & Kern LLP have
filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New
York against JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., and
JPMorgan Chase & Co.  The complaint alleges various causes of
actions arising from defendants' failure to honor its "Same Day
Payment Guarantee" whereby defendants promised that payments made
on-line from a Chase deposit account to a Chase credit card
account would be credited on the same day.  However, the
plaintiffs allege that the payments were not credited on the same
day.

On February 11, 2013, Bieghler et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.,
et al., Index No. 13-CV-967, was filed on behalf of thousands of
account holders.  The complaint alleges that plaintiffs were
injured by having to pay up to several days of additional
interest, losing the low-interest promotional interest rate,
failing to maintain appropriate levels of overdraft line of credit
and being charged inappropriate late fees.

If you believe that you made payments from your Chase deposit
account to your Chase Visa account and that the payments were not
credited on the same day and that you suffered any of the above-
referenced damage, please send an email or call:

          Adam J. Gana, Esq.
          Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          E-mail: agana@napolibern.com


KRINOS FOODS: Recalls Tahini Jars Because of Possible Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krinos Foods, LLC, of Long Island City, New York, is voluntarily
recalling its TAHINI sesame paste, because it has the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The TAHINI sesame paste product comes in 1 LB and 2 LB glass jars.
The UPC code of the 1 LB jar is 0-75013-28500-3 and the 2 LB jar
is 0-75013-28510-2.  The recalled lots have a code stamped on the
lid between "EXP OCT 16 - 2014" up to and including "EXP MAR 15 -
2015."  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm350169.htm

To Krinos's knowledge, no illnesses have been reported to date in
connection with this recall.

The potential for contamination was noted after the Michigan
Department of Agriculture conducted routine testing on a sample of
the product in a retail store and advised Krinos of the positive
test results.  Krinos has ceased distribution of the product as
FDA, the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and the Company,
continue their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product are urged to
discard the product and return the gold cap stamped with the dates
EXP OCT 16 - 2014" up to and including "EXP MAR 15 - 2015 and
proof of purchase for a full refund to:

          Krinos Foods LLC
          4700 Northern Blvd.
          Long Island City, NY 11101

If consumers do not have a proof of purchase, Krinos will
reimburse them $8.00 per jar plus $.50 for postage.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company at (718) 729-9000
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


LAW SCHOOL: Disabled Test Takers' Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Strickler, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge handed a victory on April 22 to a state enforcement
agency suing the Law School Admission Test administrator for
allegedly failing to properly accommodate disabled test takers,
saying the case can proceed without federal class action
certification.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing's initial claim
against the LSAT administrators accused the test administrators of
violating state law and the Americans with Disabilities Act on
behalf of 17 named plaintiffs as well as "all disabled individuals
in [California]" who requested accommodation for disabilities.


LEM PRODUCTS: Recalls 14,700 5-Tray Food Dehydrators With Timer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Health Canada and LEM Products Distribution, LLC of West Chester,
Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,600 5-Tray
Dehydrator with Digital Timer in the United States of America and
100 in Canada.  This product was previously recalled in February
2011.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The fan can fail causing the unit to overheat and pose a fire
hazard.

LEM Products Distribution has received two reports of fan failure
both resulting in fire in the units.  In one incident the consumer
was close by and prevented a fire by carrying the unit outside.
There were no injuries reported.

This recall involves 5-tray food dehydrators.  The dehydrators are
gray and are made of plastic and metal.  The model number 1009 is
on a label located on the back panel with the Company's contact
details.  The "LEM" logo is embossed on the top of the unit, which
has a panel with the digital timer, the on/off switch and a
temperature control knob.  The UPC code is printed on the bottom
of the packaging and reads 734494010091.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/CuKTtI

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Shops, Gander Mountain, Sportsman's Warehouse and other mass
merchandisers and retailers nationwide and online at Amazon.com
and www.lemproducts.com from August 2010 through February 2013 for
about $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the dehydrator and contact
LEM Products Distribution for instructions on free shipping and
repair of the recalled product.  LEM is offering a one year
warranty extension and a $10 discount coupon, which can be used
towards a LEM catalog or online purchase, to all consumers who
return their recalled units for repair.  LEM Products Distribution
may be reached toll free at (877) 536-7763 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.lemproducts.com/and click Warranty and Recall at the
bottom of the page for more information.


LHC GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Omaha" Class Suit Denied in March
------------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action
lawsuit filed by the Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System was
denied in March 2013, 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 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
01609-JTT-CMH.  The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares between July 30, 2008, and October 26, 2011.
The Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false
and misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer is a control person under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff
City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of the same putative class of LHC
shareholders as the original Complaint.  In addition to claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended
Complaint added a claim against the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously.  On December 17, 2012, the Company
and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated
March 15, 2013.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome or
effect of this lawsuit, if any, on the Company's business.

Headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, LHC Group, Inc. --
http://www.lhcgroup.com/-- provides post-acute health care
services to patients through its home nursing agencies, hospices
and long-term acute care hospitals.


LIPPER HOLDINGS: PwC Obtains Favorable Judgment in Investors' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SERINO and LUCILLE SERINO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH LIPPER,
LIPPER HOLDINGS, LLC, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, LIPPER &
COMPANY, INC., ABRAHAM BIDERMAN, LAWRENCE BLOCK, EDWARD STRAFACI,
and MICHAEL VISOVSKY, Defendants, Docket No. 604396/2002, was
commenced in 2002 as a putative class action by former investors
in the hedge funds operated by defendants known as the Lipper
Convertibles Funds.  Former defendant Edward Strafaci committed
criminal securities fraud for which he served a six-year prison
sentence by grossly inflating the value of the Funds' securities,
which led to the Funds' collapse. On February 13, 2004, a judgment
was entered against former defendant Lipper Holdings, the Funds'
general partner, for approximately $91 million. At all relevant
times, Lipper Inc. was the general partner or managing member of
the Funds' general partner (which was Lipper L.P. from 1987 to
1997, and Holdings since 1997).

PwC has moved for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for
dismissal of the cross-claims of defendants Kenneth Lipper and
Lipper & Company.  Mr. Lipper cross-moved for partial summary
judgment against PwC.

Mr. Lipper averred that he suffered individualized damages because
(1) PwC's fraud destroyed his career; and (2) he paid more than
$6 million in gift taxes when he transferred a portion of his
interest in the Funds to his children.

On April 25, 2013, Judge Shirley Werner Konreich of the Supreme
Court of Westchester County granted PwC's summary judgment motion
and denied Mr. Lipper's cross-motion for partial summary judgment
against PwC.  Judge Konreich concluded that Mr. Lipper cannot
maintain a claim against PwC for his lost earnings because they
are impermissibility speculative.  Mr. Lipper also cannot maintain
a claim against PwC for the gift taxes that he paid because he
failed to seek a refund or credit from the IRS, she added.

Judge Konreich directed the clerk of court to enter judgment
dismissing all cross-claims asserted against PwC.

A copy of the Supreme Court's April 25, 2013 Decision and Order is
available at http://is.gd/2OHg4Bfrom Leagle.com.


MAPLE VIEW: Recalls 2,650 Pints of Three Flavors of Ice Cream
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maple View Farm is voluntarily recalling pint containers of
Cookies & Cream, Carolina Crunch and Cookie Dough ice cream
because the products contain allergens that were not declared on
package labels.

Some or all of the products contain wheat, soy, almonds and
peanuts, which can cause serious allergic reactions in people who
have an allergy or sensitivity to these ingredients.

The recall affects 2,650 pints of ice cream distributed between
September 5, 2012, and April 24, 2013.  The products were
distributed to a limited number of grocery stores and specialty
shops in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Hillsborough, Mebane,
Morehead City, Morrisville, Pittsboro, Snow Camp and Wilmington.

Hillsborough-based Maple View Farm initiated the recall after a
label review during a routine inspection by the N.C. Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services determined the presence of
allergens.  The product was distributed in packaging that did not
declare the presence of allergens.

No complaints of allergic reactions to this product have been
reported to date.  Consumers who have allergies to these
ingredients should return the product to the place of purchase or
throw it away.


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP on April 23 disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California at San Diego on behalf of a class comprised
of purchasers of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., common stock from
April 28, 2011 through March 7, 2013, inclusive.  The Complaint
alleges that Maxwell and certain of its executive officers issued
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company's
business, operations and prospects.

Maxwell announced on March 7, 2013 that its earlier financial
statements contained in its annual report for the year ended
December 31, 2011, and unaudited quarterly reports in 2011 and
2012, should no longer be relied upon because of erroneous
financial statements.  These errors relate to the timing of
recognition of revenue from sales. Maxwell also disclosed that
"as a result of its investigation, certain employees were
terminated and the Sr. Vice President of Sales and Marketing
resigned . . . ."  On this news, the Company's shares declined
$1.01 per share (on March 8, 2013), to close at $8.10 per share --
a one-day decline of 11%.

The Complaint alleges that Maxwell made false statements and
didn't disclose: (1) that employees of the Company were making
arrangements with distributors regarding payment terms for sales
that were improper; (2) that these arrangements were not shared
with Maxwell's accounting department; (3) that these arrangements
were not considered when Maxwell recorded revenue; (4) that the
arrangements included unspecified pricing; (5) that collection was
not reasonably assured for certain transactions; (6) that Maxwell
nonetheless was improperly recognizing revenue; (7) that the
Company's financial results were therefore not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (9) as a result of the above, the Company's earlier
statements were materially wrong.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for purchasers of Maxwell
common stock during the Class Period.  Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP,
the San Diego law firm is a highly regarded and experienced law
firm litigating securities cases throughout the country.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you can by
May 13, 2013, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff.  You can
also do nothing and remain a class member.  Your sharing in a
recovery is not affected by this decision.  However, if you want
to actively participate and further discuss this matter, please
contact our office at 877-493-5366 (Michael Plavi Esq.), by fax to
619-238-5425, or by writing Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, 501 West
Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, or via e-mail at
jrk@classaction.com


MONGIELLO ITALIAN: Recalls Mozzarella With Chorizo & Cilantro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mongiello Italian Cheese Specialties, DBA Formaggio Italian Cheese
Specialties, a Hurleyville, New York establishment, is recalling
approximately 234 pounds of fresh mozzarella with chorizo and
cilantro products because of misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, soy, which is not declared on the label.

The product subject to recall includes:

   * 8-oz. packages of "FORMAGGIO Authentic Hand Rolled Fresh
     Mozzarella with Chorizo & Cilantro" bearing the
     establishment number "EST. 34483" inside the USDA mark of
     inspection with "Use by Dates" prior to 5/31/2013.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/qw2pM8

The products were produced and packaged on various dates prior to
March 28, 2013, and distributed to retail stores in New Jersey and
New York.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a recent Food Safety
Assessment.  The problem occurred when the Company changed chorizo
suppliers.  FSIS and the Company have received no reports of
adverse reactions due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Ricky
Pagan, Senior Vice President of Operations, at (845) 436-4200,
ext. 129.  Media with questions about the recall should contact
James Riley, Vice President of Media, at (845) 436-4200, ext. 117.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
8-oz. packages of "FORMAGGIO Authentic Hand Rolled Fresh
Mozzarella with Chorizo & Cilantro" that have been recalled by
Formaggio Italian Cheese Specialties.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/qw2pM8,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Glen Ridge Bottle King      Glen Ridge, New Jersey
    Glen Rock Bottle King       Glen Rock, New Jersey
    Morris Plains Bottle King   Morris Plains, New Jersey
    Ramsey Bottle King          Ramsey, New Jersey
    Wayne Bottle King           Wayne, New Jersey
    Food Town                   Brooklyn, New York


MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 2,100 Cub Cadet Commercial Lawn Mowers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MTD Products Inc, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,100 Cub Cadet 2011 Commercial Zero Turn Mowers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Fuel can leak from the vent valve grommet on top of the fuel tank
during operation, posing a risk of fire.

Cub Cadet has received 106 reports of fuel leaking or seeping from
the top of the tank, including one report of a fire.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves eight 2011 model Cub Cadet commercial zero
turn lawn mowers.  Models included in the recall are: M54-KH, M60-
KH, M60-KW, M72-KW, S6031-KW, S7237-KW, TANK L48 and TANK L60.
Mowers included in the recall were manufactured between January
2011 and December 2011.  A label located on the frame under the
foot rest lists the model number and the month and year date of
manufacture (DOM).  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/20irpw

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at independent Cub Cadet dealers nationwide from
January 2011 through January 2013 for between $7,700 and $18,700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and
contact an authorized Cub Cadet service dealer for a free repair.
Cub Cadet is contacting its customers directly.  Cub Cadet may be
reached toll-free at (888) 848-6038, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Saturday, or online at http://www.cubcadet.com/and
click on "Product Recalls" for more information.


NESTLE PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizzas Due to Foreign Matters
----------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Pizza Company, a Little Chute, Wisconsin establishment, is
recalling an undetermined amount of frozen pizzas that may be
contaminated with extraneous materials and are the subject of a
recall administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), FSIS announced.

These products are subject to USDA recall:

   * California Pizza Kitchen(C) Limited Edition Grilled Chicken
     with Cabernet Sauce, UPC 71921 00781; production code is
     3059525952.

   * DiGiorno(C) Crispy Flatbread Pizza Tuscan Style Chicken,
     UPC 71921 02663; production codes are 3057525922 and
     3058525921.

Each product package above has an establishment number of P-5754.

In addition, these products are subject to FDA recall:

   * DiGiorno(C) pizzeria!(TM) Bianca/White Pizza, UPC 71921
     91484; production code is 3068525951.

   * California Pizza Kitchen (CPK) Crispy Thin Crust White(C),
     UPC 71921 98745; production codes are 3062525951, 3062525952
     and 3063525951.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/rfCKPL

The problem was discovered after the firm received consumer
complaints that small fragments of plastic were found in the CPK
Crispy Thin Crust White Pizza.  The problem was related to the lot
of spinach used in the production of three additional varieties of
pizza subject to recall.  There has been one consumer report of
injury thus far (a chipped tooth) associated with consumption of
these products.  The fragments are of clear, brittle plastic, in
irregular triangles, and may have sharp edges.

All the pizzas being recalled were produced between February 26
and March 9 of this year and shipped to retail establishments
nationwide.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:
http://is.gd/Mxp5ng

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Nestle
USA Consumer Services at 800-456-4394 or nestlepizza@casupport.com
for further instructions.  Hours of operation are Monday through
Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time and Saturday
from Noon to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Media with questions about the recall should contact Deborah Cross
at (847) 400-1236 or Deborah.Cross@us.nestle.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


NESTLE USA: Recalls Calif. Pizza Kitchen & DiGiorno Frozen Pizzas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle USA's Pizza Division announced the voluntary recall of
select production codes of four different frozen pizzas sold in
the U.S.  These include:

   * California Pizza Kitchen (CPK) Crispy Thin Crust White(R),
     UPC 71921 98745; production codes are 3062525951, 3062525952
     and 3063525951.

   * California Pizza Kitchen(R) Limited Edition Grilled Chicken
     with Cabernet Sauce, UPC 71921 00781; production code is
     3059525952.

   * DiGiorno(R) Crispy Flatbread Pizza Tuscan Style Chicken,
     UPC 71921 02663; production codes are 3057525922 and
     3058525921.

   * DiGiorno(R) pizzeria!(TM) Bianca/White Pizza, UPC 71921
     91484; production code is 3068525951.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm350709.htm

The voluntary recall is limited to frozen pizzas with these
specific production codes, which were distributed nationwide.  No
other production codes/dates, sizes or varieties of CALIFORNIA
PIZZA KITCHEN or DIGIORNO pizzas are affected by this recall.  The
reason for the recall is that the pizza may contain fragments of
clear plastic.  Nestle USA is taking this action after a small
number of consumers reported that they had found small fragments
of plastic on the CPK Crispy Thin Crust White pizza.  The
Company's investigation indicates this is directly related to a
particular lot of spinach the Company received from one of its
suppliers.  Although no complaints have been received to date on
the other three varieties that used this spinach, the Company is
recalling these additional varieties in an abundance of caution.

All the pizzas being recalled were produced during February and
March of this year.  Because Nestle USA delivers pizzas in the
U.S. directly to retailer freezer cases, the Company has already
instructed its direct store delivery team to begin removing pizzas
affected by this recall at retail locations nationwide.  The
Company also is working together with its retail partners to
ensure that these varieties are removed from freezer shelves
nationwide.

Nestle USA also is reaching out to consumers to ask that they
examine their freezer inventory for the specific packages of
DIGIORNO and CPK varieties affected by this recall.

To locate the production codes for these specific pizzas, the
consumer simply needs to look for a blue or pink rectangular box
on one of the side panels of the pizza box.  The production code
is on the second line of the printed code and is the first ten
digits of the number.  Consumers should look for these production
codes:

   * CPK Crispy Thin Crust White: 3062525951, 3062525952 and
     3063525951.

   * CPK Limited Edition Grilled Chicken with Cabernet Sauce:
     3059525952.

   * DiGiorno Crispy Flatbread Pizza Tuscan Style Chicken:
     3057525922 and 3058525921.

   * DiGiorno pizzeria! Bianca/White Pizza: production code is
     3068525951.

Consumers who may have purchased the recalled CPK and DIGIORNO
pizzas with the identified production codes should not consume the
pizza, but instead should contact Nestle USA Consumer Services at
800-456-4394 or nestlepizza@casupport.com for further
instructions.  Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, from
8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time and this Saturday, May 4,
from 12:00 noon - 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  Nestle will provide a
replacement coupon to reporting consumers and also may make
arrangements to retrieve the pizza for further examination.

Nestle USA is dedicated to food quality, and the health and safety
of its consumers.  For these reasons, the Company initiated this
recall.  The Company apologizes to its retail customers and
consumers and sincerely regrets any inconvenience created by this
voluntary product recall.


ORIENT PAPER: Awaits Final Okay of $2-Mil. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its $2 million
settlement of a securities class action lawsuit filed 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.

On August 6, 2010, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.  The
complaint in the lawsuit, Mark Henning, et al. v. Orient Paper et
al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx), alleges, among other claims, that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and
omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative
statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial
performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that
the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued
or corrected.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  The
Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and a class
consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011.  On July 20, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, thus allowing the
litigation to proceed to discovery.  On June 21, 2012, the Company
reached a proposed settlement of the securities class action
lawsuit with the plaintiffs.  The terms of the proposed settlement
call for dismissal of all the defendants from the action in
exchange for a $2 million payment from the Company's insurer.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
November 5, 2012, and the Company expects final settlement
approval by the court after the hearing scheduled on March 25,
2013.  The management believes that the proposed settlement, if
approved, should have no material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

Orient Paper, Inc. -- http://www.orientpaperinc.com/-- was
incorporated in Nevada under the name of Carlateral, Inc., and is
headquartered in Baoding City in the Hebei Province of The
People's Republic of China.  Carlateral started its business by
providing financing services specializing in subprime title loans,
secured primarily using automobiles as collateral.  The Company
became the holding company for Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling
Company Limited, a producer and distributor of paper products in
China.


ORLEANS PARISH: Sheriff Opposes Motion to Appoint Receiver
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Maldonado at Gambit reports that Orleans Parish Sheriff
Marlin Gusman on April 23 formally opposed New Orleans city
government's motion to appoint a federal receiver to take over the
operations of Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), arguing that it is not
inadequate management but decades of inadequate city funding that
led to the jail's current state, which is as follows:

"On Sunday, April 7, 2013 the Times Picayune ran a front page
story asking the rhetorical question "Sheriff Marlin Gusman --
worst jailer? Or -- is he just burdened with the worst jail?" As
will be clearly proven below, the answer to that question is that
he is burdened with the worst jail," reads the opening paragraph
of Mr. Gusman's motion in opposition to the city's request.

We should do a refresher on the arguments being made here. U.S.
District Court Judge Lance Africk is weighing whether to adopt a
consent decree for OPP, pursuant to a federal class action lawsuit
against the prison.  The inmate plaintiff class, represented by
the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) are in favor of the decree, arguing that conditions
at the jail violate the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Gusman is also in favor of the consent decree, because, as his
attorneys say above, OPP is "the worst jail."  However, he does
not concede that conditions are unconstitutional, just "the
worst."  In fact, during testimony at a recent fairness hearing
for the decree, he said, "I think we're doing pretty good without
the consent decree."

The city, meanwhile, believes the jail is so poorly run that it
needs to be taken over by the federal government, but the consent
decree, a less extreme measure (albeit a potentially costly one),
is overly broad.

The April 23 motion goes into some detail about another OPP
consent decree, from the 1969 case Hamilton v. Schiro, which
resulted in the jail's per diem funding structure.

From the motion:

"In 1989, Sheriff Foti filed a motion in Hamilton to increase the
City's funding of his Office."

"This motion resulted in a Stipulation and Consent Judgment
entered July 17, 1990 (Hamilton Rec. Doc.419). The City agreed to
increase its housing payment to $19.65 a day, per inmate,
effective January 1, 1991.  The agreement also provided for direct
payment by the City of all utilities, gasoline and oil, health
insurance, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance for
the Sheriff's Office, for direct payment for the cost of providing
medical care for City inmates, and appropriations to the Sheriff
for the cost of providing court services for Criminal Court."

Back then, the city retained an expert to determine an appropriate
rate.  The city never revealed the results of that report, the
sheriff's office claims, but it somehow appeared in an analysis by
the Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR), which Mr. Gusman
submits as an exhibit.  The expert, BGR claims, recommended
$22.54, 15 cents higher than the current per inmate, per day rate.

From the motion:

"Clearly, the City Council and past and present Mayors have long
been aware both of the City's constitutional funding obligation to
OPP, and that (based on their own expert's report twenty-three
years ago) the $19.65 housing per diem the City grudgingly agreed
to then was a tremendous bargain then -- and that the modest 2003
increase to $22.39 remains inadequate today."

"The City cannot continue to balance its budget on the back of the
Sheriff and the United States Constitution.  Today, OPP faces the
inevitable result of more than thirty years' neglect by the City
of the City's correctional operations and facilities and its
obligation to that system.  It is unfortunate that the burden for
those decades of inattention must now fall on the present Mayor
and City Council, and the taxpayers of the City -- and Sheriff
Gusman as well.  However, to place the blame for the present
situation on Sheriff Gusman, much less to suggest he should be
stripped of virtually all powers and responsibilities of the
office to which he was elected by the citizens of New Orleans, is
patently wrong."

The plaintiffs weigh in: "Plaintiffs summarize applicable law but
take no position on whether a receiver can be appointed at this
time.  Plaintiffs remain focused on advocating for the timely
entry of the Consent Judgment to address the ongoing dangerous and
unlawful conditions at OPP.


P.E. & F.: Recalls 123 Lbs. of Meatballs Due to Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.E. & F. Inc., a St. Louis establishment, is recalling
approximately 123 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat meatballs due to
possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

These products are subject to recall:

   * 15-oz. packages of "Fazio's Meatballs"

Each package has a lot code of "041114," and bears the
establishment number "EST. 13051" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.  The products were produced on April 11, 2013, and
sold at retail locations in the St. Louis area.  Picture of the
recalled products' label is available at: http://is.gd/BFkkT4

The problem was discovered by FSIS routine sampling for Listeria
monocytogenes.  The Company inadvertently did not hold the product
pending test results.  FSIS and the Company have received no
reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these
products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:
http://is.gd/Mxp5ng.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.
Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well
as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened
immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.  Individuals concerned about
an illness should contact a health care provider.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Nick Lamia at (314) 308-1530.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring
System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I


PARADISE CITY II: Strippers Agree to Participate in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
the three strippers who filed a class action lawsuit against their
former employer have agreed to participate in arbitration.

On April 17, the trio and Paradise City II agreed to stay the
lawsuit while they attempted mediation, which is to commence
within 30 days.  In a March motion to dismiss, the club had
brought up a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment
contracts.

The lawsuit, filed March 1 in Berkeley County Circuit Court,
alleges Paradise City II violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collections Act by taking a
percentage of the dancers' tips.

The motion to dismiss says both state and federal law mandates the
dispute be sent to arbitration.  It cites paragraph 20 of a Dancer
Performance Lease the club says the dancers signed.

"Any controversy, dispute or claim arising out of this lease or
otherwise out of Entertainer performing at the premises of the
club shall be exclusively decided by binding arbitration under the
Federal Arbitration Act," the lease says.

The lease also puts in question if the dancers are allowed to file
a class action.

"Entertainer agrees that all claims between her and the club will
be litigated individually and that she will not consolidate or
seek class treatment for any claim," it says.

The three plaintiffs in the March 1 case against Paradise City II
are Man Le Garrett, Krystal McLaughlin and Jane Roe.  Ms. Roe is a
pseudonym being used to avoid violence from third parties.

The case alleges Paradise City II and manager Warren Dellinger
required the three to pay, from their tips, $35 for each private
dance and $30 for a 30-minute dance in the champagne room.  Other
dancers paid even higher amounts, the suit says, including $50 for
a 30-minute dance in the champagne room.

Ms. Garrett and Ms. McLaughlin were employed for four months and
Roe for 11 months.  The women say they will fairly and adequately
represent the class.

They are represented by Martinsburg attorney Garry Geffert and
Maryland attorney Gregg C. Greenberg of the Zipin Law Firm.  They
also filed five complaints from March 7, 2011, to Jan. 2, 2012, in
Martinsburg federal court.

Four have been settled, and the class action filed by Arielle
Jordan, aka Queen, and Patrice Ruffin, aka Karma, against Legz
Club remains pending, though a settlement has been proposed and
accepted.

On March 28, U.S. District Judge Gina Groh ruled that the
conditions of the proposed settlement are fair, though a final
hearing on its fairness will be held July 29.

The gross settlement amount is $345,000.  Messrs. Greenberg and
Geffert will petition the court for fees, litigation costs and a
named plaintiff incentive award to be paid out of that amount.

Messrs. Greenberg and Geffert will be petitioning for 40 percent
of the award -- $138,000.

In settlement negotiations, the two were originally seeking
$642,000 for the class.

Any funds remaining from the $345,000 will be given to Public
Justice, a public interest law firm.

Like Paradise City II, Taboo Gentlemen's Club cited a mandatory
arbitration clause in its employment contract with dancers.

The clause was the subject of a Sept. 26 motion to dismiss filed
by the club.  The judge in the case was never given a chance to
respond to it, as the case was settled three weeks later.

Representing Paradise City II is Floyd M. Sayre III of Bowles
Rice's Martinsburg office.


PAYPAL PTE: Facing Class Action Over Unauthorized Conversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Itzhak Dannon, writing for Jewish Business News, reports that an
application for certification of a class action against the
corporate multi-national PayPal Pte, Ltd., (a subsidiary of eBay
Inc.) was filed with the Lod District Court.  The company
(incorporated in Singapore) in effect serves as a conduit for the
transfer funds between buyers and sellers who execute a business
deal through the Internet.

The application states that PayPal services operate as follows: A
buyer, looking to make a deal over the internet deposits in his
PayPal account certain amount of money in a given currency.  When
a transaction is made in a different currency than that deposited
by the buyer, PayPal then converts the currency to that of the
transaction (for example, when the transaction has in dollars
PayPal converted a euro deposit by the buyer into dollars).

PayPal, the pleadings aver, transfers the money (whether in the
currency deposited or the converted one) to the seller's PayPal
account after deducting its commission for this service.  The
seller then withdraws the funds accumulated in his PayPal account
using the procedures listed in his agreement with PayPal,
including a transfer to his bank account. However, when an Israeli
account-holder wants to transfer money, which is on deposit in his
PayPal account in foreign currency to his local bank account,
PayPal automatically converts the foreign currency into shekels.

According to the applicant, Raz Klinghoffer, the agreement
contains no terms or conditions that such withdrawal can only be
had in shekels, as opposed to withdrawal in the original currency
deposited in his PayPal account.  Indeed, PayPal, according to
plaintiff, explicitly admits this allegation.  The applicant
believes that such conduct constitutes a violation of his
agreement with PayPal and is contrary to the reasonable
expectations of any of PayPal's account-holders, i.e., that they
will be able to withdraw their funds in the same currency in which
it was on deposit with PayPal.

Moreover, plaintiff argues, that is only one side of the coin.  He
claims that PayPal charges an additional fee for the forced,
unauthorized conversion, a conversion fee of 2.5% of the sum
withdrawn, which is apparently the incentive of PayPal to act in
such manner, even though it is not authorized by the agreement.

The application maintains that according to the agreement there is
only one circumstance where PayPal is permitted to collect
conversion fee: when a transaction between buyer and seller
requires currency conversion.  For instance, when a seller offers
a deal in dollars and the buyer deposits funds in his PayPal
account in shekels. In this case, in order to complete the
transaction, PayPal converts the shekels into dollars and may
charge a commission for it, all of which is in accord with the
terms of the agreement.

Therefore, the application contends, performing unnecessary,
utterly unjustified acts that affect its account-holders' funds in
clear preference of its interest -- where it increase its monetary
reward -- over the interests of the account-holders, violated
PayPal's fiduciary duty to its account-holders, a duty which, by
law and equity, it owes them.

The Court is asked to declare that PayPal is not entitled to
collect a fee for any forced conversion it has performed where its
account-holders sought to withdraw foreign currency from their
accounts.  Additionally, plaintiff asks the court to compel PayPal
to pay restitution to its account-holders, whose number he
estimated at about 70,000, which equals the monetary value of all
forced conversion fees charged.  In the aggregate the application
estimates the amount to be NIS21 million ($5,880,000) based on an
estimated average damage of NIS300 ($84) per account-holder.


PENGUIN GROUP: Judge Denies Request for Jury Trial in E-Book Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers' Weekly, reports that in a
recently issued opinion, Judge Denise Cote shot down Penguin's
request for a jury trial to hear the remaining state and the
consumer class action cases against them.  "Penguin's March 15,
2013 motion for a jury trial on the States' claims is denied,"
Judge Cote ordered, holding that it was "clear that Penguin, along
with all other litigating parties, knowingly and intentionally
waived a jury determination of liability on the States' claims."
The decision means that, barring a last minute settlement, Penguin
will be joining Apple at the defense table on June 3 as the bench
trial gets underway in the long-running e-book price fixing case.

In its March 15 filing, Penguin had argued that its December
settlement with the DoJ "materially changed" the legal landscape
for them.  Although the publisher had initially agreed to a bench
trial before Cote for the consolidated claims, following the DoJ
settlement, Penguin attorneys argued they never waived their right
to have a jury hear the remaining state claims.

Judge Cote, however, in an opinion that recalled the full,
twisting legal path of the case to this point, ruled that Penguin
"conspicuously and voluntarily" waived its right to a jury trial
during an October 26 conference, and later confirmed that waiver
through its conduct, and that "all litigating parties clearly
understood that the States' claims would be addressed at the June
Bench Trial."

She also held that Penguin's settlement in the DoJ action "had no
effect on the nature of the States' claims" to be adjudicated by
the Court at the June bench trial.

"The Government and the States each claim that Apple entered into
a conspiracy with publishers to fix prices of certain e-books.
The nature of the conspiracies alleged necessarily means that
evidence bearing on the intent of the publishers, even of those
alleged conspirators who have settled claims, will be relevant at
trial.  The Court will not at this stage force the parties to
conduct a second liability trial resting on duplicative evidence."

The decision paves the way for the long-scheduled June 3 bench
trial to begin as scheduled, although Penguin could still avoid
joining that trial by settling with the states and the consumer
class.


PETRO CANADA: Gowlings Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Belinda A. Bain, Esq., and Estelle Hjertaas, Esq., at Gowlings
report that in the recent case of Lorraine v. Petro Canada 2013
QCCA 332, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to authorize a
proposed class action based on alleged inaccuracies in the
measurement of gasoline, leading to inflated prices at gas pumps.

The proposed class action is based on statistics compiled by
Measurement Canada, which is a federal organization responsible
for the integrity and accuracy of measurement in the marketplace.
In conducting gas pump inspections from 1999 to 2007, Measurement
Canada found a number of errors in the accuracy of the measurement
of the delivery of gasoline from the pumps.  Under the Weights and
Measures Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. W-6), the authorized margin of
error is 0.5%, which is equivalent to a difference of 100
millilitres on 20 litres.  According to the results of the
inspections, 8% of inspected pumps had an error -- 6% to the
detriment of the consumer, and 2% to the detriment of the seller.
The Ottawa Citizen concluded that mistakes were unfavorable to
consumers 74% of the time.

Based on this information, on May 21, 2008, Alexandre Lorrain
requested authorization to begin a class action and to be
designated as representative.  The class action targets the errors
made by the respondents or people operating gas stations under
their banner with regard to the calibration of gas pumps.  The
group that Mr. Lorrain aims to represent is all physical persons
and individual businesses, and all legal persons with less than 50
employees in Quebec who, since January 1, 1999, purchased gas from
one of the defective pumps and suffered damages accordingly.  The
requested damages are the excess paid by consumers for the
purchase of gasoline during the affected period.

On July 27, 2011, the Superior Court of Quebec refused to
authorize the class action. That decision was appealed on August
26, 2011.

                   Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's decision and
refused to authorize the class action. In doing so, the Court of
Appeal considered four main issues:

1. Did the judge err in setting out the general principles
applicable to the authorization of a class action?

The Court of Appeal found that the judge made no error in this
regard. Article 4.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which
states that "the parties must ensure that the proceedings they
choose are proportionate, in terms of costs and time required, to
the nature and ultimate purpose of the action or application and
to the complexity of the dispute", does not have the effect of
importing from other provinces the principle that the judge can
refuse to certify a class action if it is not the most appropriate
means of bringing the case.  However, the principle of
proportionality under article 4.2 does apply to class actions, as
it does to all other cases under the CPC.

The existence of a serious right or issue is also an appropriate
consideration.1

2. Did the judge err in the application of paragraph 1003 b)
("Facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought") of the
Code of Civil Procedure?

While the Court of Appeal identified two errors by the lower
court, which were (1) preferring some expert witnesses despite not
having heard any of them testify and (2) determining that the data
from Measurement Canada was not reliable, it agreed with the lower
court that the requirement under paragraph 1003(b) that the "facts
alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" was not met.

While the appellants argued that the statistical evidence gathered
by Measurement Canada demonstrated that some consumers had been
overcharged, and thereby prejudiced, the Superior Court noted that
there was an absence of any direct evidence of prejudice to the
designated persons.  None of the designated persons were able to
show receipts or other evidence that they had purchased gasoline
from one of the affected pumps.

While the appellants further argued that, given time, they would
be able to show a direct prejudice, this argument flies in the
face of the proportionality rule under article 4.2 of the CPC.  If
the designated persons were launching an individual action, they
would have to prove that they had suffered a prejudice -- the same
must apply for a class action.

3. Did the judge err in the application of paragraph 1003 a)
("Identical, similar or related questions of law") of the Code of
Civil Procedure?

As found by the lower court, there was an absence of identical,
similar or related questions of law with regard to the prejudice
suffered by each member of the group.  The level of damages could
vary infinitely within the affected class, as one member may have
had only one transaction with an affected gas pump and another may
have had many.  This is doubly so since each transaction may also
vary with regard to the level of error at the pump.  Combined with
the difficulty of proving damages, it is clear that the criteria
are not met.

4. Did the judge err in the application of paragraph 1003 d) ("the
member to whom the court intends to ascribe the status of
representative is in a position to represent the members
adequately") of the Code of Civil Procedure?

On this point, the Court found that a person with a weak claim
could not adequately represent the whole group, as the
representative's claim is the basis for the court to analyze the
case, and a class action is not intended as a method to circumvent
principles of civil law: there must be a fault, a damage, and a
casual relationship between the two.

In addition to the failure to demonstrate a direct and personal
prejudice affecting the designated persons, there are also factors
that lead the lower court to question the seriousness and openness
of the process to represent the members of the group.
Conclusion

This decision represents a forceful rejection of an increasing
trend of attempts to establish proof of harm in class actions
through the use of statistical evidence.  If similar reasoning is
applied elsewhere in Canada, it appears it will not be enough for
class counsel to establish that, based on a statistical analysis,
someone MUST have suffered harm as a result of the alleged wrong.
Rather, it must be established, through direct evidence, that
someone DID in fact suffer such harm.


PILOT FLYING J: Attorney Expects More People to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that, more than a week after
federal officials raided the headquarters of locally based Pilot
Flying J, only one trucking company has filed a lawsuit against
the company. However, an attorney expects several others to join
the legal action shortly.

Atlantic Coast Carriers (ACC) filed a civil suit against Pilot
Corp. and Pilot Travel Centers LLC dba Pilot Flying J in Knox
County Circuit Court in Tennessee on April 20.  As CSNews Online
previously reported, the Hazelhurst, Ga.-based trucking company
requested the court grant it class-action status.

An attorney representing ACC told TV station WATE that company
officials are still determining the exact amount of money lost
from Pilot Flying J's rebate fraud.

"It's a significant number," attorney Mark Tate said.  "We think
it's into the six figures, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
We represent several other carriers who have had similar
experiences throughout the country."

Six more trucking companies are likely to join the class-action
lawsuit against Pilot Flying J by the end of the week, Tate noted,
declining to discuss the names of the other companies.

Still other trucking companies are working directly with Pilot
Flying J to get reimbursed.  W.N. Morehouse Truck Line Inc. of
Omaha, Neb. -- which was specifically mentioned in the 120-page
FBI affidavit -- has been in contact with Pilot Flying J CEO Jimmy
Haslam about the more than $146,000 the company believes it is
owed.

During a press conference on April 22, Mr. Haslam said he planned
to meet with Curt Morehouse of W.N. Morehouse Truck Line Inc. and
Tommy Hodges of Shelbyville, Tenn.-based Titan Transfer Inc. to
discuss concerns.

In addition, the owner of JTM Trucking in San Antonio told WATE
the company is reviewing its financial documents.  Jamie Martinez
said he suspects the alleged rebate fraud could have left the
company shortchanged about $10,000 a month for two years.  The
exact amount, though, is still unclear.

Mr. Tate said he believes other companies with similar stories
will end up joining ACC in taking legal action.

"When they realized that this extraordinarily financially
successful private company owned by Jimmy Haslam, who apparently
paid cash for the [National Football League's] Cleveland Browns,
was taking advantage of them, they felt like they needed to resort
to the court system," the attorney said.

According to wbir.com, a Georgia attorney says he is going to ask
a judge to order Mr. Haslam not to contact any of the trucking
companies allegedly defrauded in a rebate scheme.

Mr. Tate has filed a lawsuit that is seeking class action status
against Pilot Flying J, following a raid by the FBI and other
federal agencies.

He says Mr. Haslam's efforts to reach out to the allegedly
defrauded customers is "inappropriate and wrong."

Mr. Haslam said in on April 22 that he was reaching out to some of
those customers to "repair relationships."

Mr. Tate says those company leaders are witnesses, and Mr. Haslam
can't pay them off and call it even.

He says a number of potential clients have reached out to him
about the possibility of joining the lawsuit if it receives class
action status, but would not say how many.

A spokesperson for Pilot Flying J released this response to Tate's
request:  "Counsel for Pilot Flying J considers these allegations
outrageous when the company is trying to do the right thing and
correct any wrongs that may have occurred. To even suggest that
it's inappropriate is ludicrous."

Meanwhile, the investigation could impact Pilot Flying J's credit
rating.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Moody's Investors Service put
the company on review for a downgrade after the investigation went
public.

Standard and Poor's downgraded Pilot's rating last year from a BB
to a BB plus with a stable outlook.


PRIME FOOD: Recalls Latis Brand Herring Fillet "Antalja" in Oil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Food USA, at 50st & 1st Ave. Building # 57, in Brooklyn, New
York 11232, is recalling Latis Brand Herring Fillet "Antalja" in
Oil and Latis Brand Herring Fillet in Oil with Spices due to
contamination with listeria monocytogenes.  Listeria can cause
serious complications for pregnant women, such as stillbirth.
Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune
systems.  Listeria can also cause serious flu-like symptoms in
healthy individuals.

The recalled Latis Brand Herring Fillet "Antalja" in Oil is
packaged in 7 oz (200 grams) plastic containers with a code: Best
before (L): 11.02.2014.  The UPC code is: 4 751004 071607. Latis
Brand Herring Fillet in Oil with Spices is packaged in 7 oz (200
grams) plastic containers with a code: Best before (L):
11.02.2014.  The UPC code is: 4 751004 079429.  The products were
sold in New York State. They are products of Latvia.  Pictures of
the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm350269.htm

The recall initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
found the product to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have purchased Latis Brand Herring Fillet
"Antalja" Herring in Oil and Latis Brand Herring Fillet in Oil
with Spices should not consume it, but should return it to the
place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the
Company at 718-439-0376.


REAL PASTA: Recalls 25,000 Pounds of Frozen Pasta Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Real Pasta Inc., a North Bergen, New Jersey establishment is
recalling approximately 25,000 pounds of assorted pasta products
that were processed without benefit of inspection.  Some of the
products were also misbranded after being repackaged and may
contain soy, a known allergen not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall were labeled under these brand
names:

   * Angelina Foodservice
   * Deer Park Ravioli
   * K-Bella
   * La Gustosa Ravioli
   * NY Ravioli and Pasta
   * Pasta Del Mondo
   * Queen Ann Ravioli
   * Raffetto's Corp
   * Real Pasta Inc
   * San Marco Ravioli
   * Serino's Italian Foodservice
   * Vitamia

Various products include:

   * Meat Ravioli
   * Meat Ravioli Round
   * Meat Tortellini
   * Pre-cooked Meat Tortellini
   * Veal Tortellini
   * Meat Raviolinni
   * Chicken Tortellini
   * Chicken Ravioli with Smoked Mozzarella

The products subject to recall were packaged on various dates
since November 14, 2012, then shipped into commerce bearing one of
the following establishment numbers: Est. 21479, P-21479, Est.
4702, or P-4702, Est. 1835, or P-1835.  Wholesale and retail
outlets can identify bulk pack product by the following Julian
codes: 12318 through 12366, and 13001 through 13121.  The products
were distributed in Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New
York.

This problem was discovered in an FSIS investigation after product
was noticed in a retail outlet bearing the establishment number of
a facility that had recently lost its federal grant of inspection.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media who have questions regarding
the recall can contact James Realbuto, the Company's owner, at
(201) 552-9242.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.
"Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
assorted pasta products that have been recalled by Real Pasta Inc.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/hn70jh,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name         Location
    -------------         --------
    King Kullen Grocery   Stores in Suffolk and Nassau Counties
    Stop and Shop         Stores in the New York City metro area

    Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Trucchi's Supermarket       Abington, Massachusetts
    Foodie's Urban Market       Boston, Massachusetts
    Harvest Food                Cambridge, Massachusetts
    Lambert's Rainbow Fruit     Dorchester, Massachusetts
    Dover Market                Dover, Massachusetts
    Oakdale Packing             East Bridgewater, Massachusetts
    McKinnon's Market           Everett, Massachusetts
    Waverly Market              Framingham, Massachusetts
    Ferrara's Market            Franklin, Massachusetts
    Colella's Supermarket       Hopkinton, Massachusetts
    America Food Basket         Hyde Park, Massachusetts
    Harvest Co-op               Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
    Tutto Italiano              Lakeville, Massachusetts
    Laschi's Food Market        Methuen, Massachusetts
    Trucchi's Supermarket       Middleboro, Massachusetts
    Gene's Variety              Milford, Massachusetts
    Peter's Market              Milford, Massachusetts
    Trucchi's Supermarket       New Bedford, Massachusetts
    Butcherboy                  North Andover, Massachusetts
    Bob's Market                North Attleboro, Massachusetts
    North End Deli              Norwood, Massachusetts
    The Market at Pinehills     Plymouth, Massachusetts
    Harvest Co-op               Roslindale, Massachusetts
    McKinnon's Market           Somerville, Massachusetts
    Trucchi's Supermarket       Taunton, Massachusetts
    Best Foods                  Taunton, Massachusetts
    Trucchi's Supermarket       West Bridgewater, Massachusetts
    Lambert's Rainbow Fruit     Westwood, Massachusetts
    Gary's Wine & Liquor        Bernardsville, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Bloomfield, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Clark, New Jersey
    Corrado's                   Clifton, New Jersey
    Jerry's Gourmet             Engelwood, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Lincoln Park, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Little Falls, New Jersey
    Gary's Wine & Liquor        Madison, New Jersey
    Harrigan's                  Montville, New Jersey
    DePiero Farms               Monvale, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Nutley, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Oakland, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   Parsippany, New Jersey
    Burrini's Gourmet Market    Randolph, New Jersey
    Tom the Green Grocer        Scotch Plains, New Jersey
    Corrado's                   Wayne, New Jersey
    Gary's Wine & Liquor        Wayne, New Jersey
    Shop Rite                   West Caldwell, New Jersey
    Caputo Market               Brooklyn, New York


SAN ANTONIO, TX: Lead Plaintiff in Equality Class Action Dies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Ayala, writing for San Antonio Express News, reports that
Demetrio Rodriguez, lead plaintiff in a historic 1968 class-action
lawsuit against the state's method of funding public schools and
whose name became synonymous with school finance equity, died on
April 22 of Parkinson's disease.  He was 87.

Born into a migrant farm-working family, he became the namesake
plaintiff of the Rodriguez et al vs. San Antonio ISD case, which
found state funding of Texas public schools unconstitutional but
was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Mr. Rodriguez
also served in the military and said he experienced discrimination
first-hand in both situations.

"He was the father who wouldn't give in to the injustice," said
David Hinojosa, Southwest regional counsel of the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which joined the battle for
property-poor school districts in the 1980s.

"He was a very noble, honest person" and the perfect plaintiff for
the case, said Mr. Hinojosa, who spoke of him at a national
conference in March at the University of Richmond to mark the
suit's 40th anniversary.

"He was a very positive force in the community," said Al Kauffman,
a law professor at St. Mary's University School of Law and
formerly of MALDEF.  "He continued working.  He was a strong
advocate for his children and grandchildren."

The first case was won in federal court in 1971 and overturned in
the Supreme Court in 1973.  By 1984, MALDEF filed Edgewood vs.
Kirby, again with Rodriguez as a plaintiff, and the Texas
Legislature responded with a school funding plan that critics
called "Robin Hood," requiring property-rich districts to share
their wealth.

Mr. Rodriguez was one of 16 Edgewood Independent School District
parents who were the original plaintiffs.  They had organized
after a series of student walkouts focused attention on inadequate
facilities, supplies and even books at the property-poor,
predominantly Mexican American district on the West Side.

In 1968, Chicano students throughout the Southwest organized
walkouts over similar situations that stemmed from separate
Mexican schools that predated school districts.

At Edgewood, hundreds of young activists protested everything from
deteriorating facilities to uncertified teachers, even the lack of
toilet paper in restrooms.

Mr. Rodriguez "started off doing it for my brothers and myself,"
said daughter Patricia Rodriguez, a third-grade bilingual teacher
in the Edgewood district.  "Eventually, he did it for all the
children of Edgewood and in the state."

"He was my hero," she said.  "I would like for other people to
remember him as a great warrior.  Even though he wasn't well
educated, he didn't let that stop him.  It didn't keep him from
fighting for what he thought was right."

Patricia Rodriguez said he didn't accept all the praise he
received, often mentioning the other parents involved in the
initial lawsuit.  Still, Mr. Rodriguez got attention.

In 2006, the University of California at Berkeley launched a
project called Rethinking Rodriguez, in which a multidisciplinary
group of scholars examined the case to help produce new litigation
and policy initiatives around education equity.

The following year, St. Mary's University's Chicano Civil Rights
Series honored him for his role in the school finance fight.

In 2010, the Westside Development Corp. honored him as a
pioneering education activist, and in 2009, he got the Champion of
Equity Award from the Austin-based Equity Center. At that time, he
criticized the Legislature's slow pace on new reforms.

Mr. Rodriguez served in the Navy and the Air Force Reserve and
worked at Kelly AFB as a sheet-metal worker.

He is survived by his wife of more than 50 years, Belen Rodriguez;
four children, David, Alex, Carlos and Patricia; 12 grandchildren;
and 10 great-grandchildren, his daughter said.  A fourth son,
James, died in 2001, she said.

Mr. Rodriguez had Parkinson's and dementia for a decade.  Services
are pending.


SARA LEE: Settles Workers' Class Action for $1.4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that Sara Lee Corp.
reached a $1.4 million settlement on April 22 with a group of
production workers at a North Carolina factory who had sued the
company a decade ago, claiming it hadn't paid them for the time
they spent changing into and out of protective gear.  According to
a joint motion filed in federal court on April 22, the settlement
would provide compensation to the 231 workers who opted in to the
class action.


SMART & FINAL: Recalls La Romanella Tri-Color Cheese Tortellini
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart & Final of Los Angeles, California, is recalling 2.5 lb. La
Romanella Tri-Color Cheese Tortellini because it may contain
undeclared wheat, eggs and milk.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to wheat, eggs and /or milk run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The product is in a 2.5 pound plastic bag, lot codes: 020713,
022513, 031113, 031813, 031913 and 040313.  The UPC number is
728920130026.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm349978.htm

Product was distributed to California, Arizona, Oregon,
Washington, Idaho and Nevada and sold through Smart & Final stores
or Cash & Carry stores.

No reports of injury or illness have been received to date.

This recall was initiated after it was discovered that the label
failed to contain an ingredient statement.

Consumers who have purchased this product may return the product
to the store where it was purchased for a replacement or a refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Smart & Final's consumer
relations at (800) 894-0511, Monday through Friday, or visit the
Company's Web site at:
http://www.smartandfinal.com/products/productrecalls.aspx.


SWEETWATER UNION: Court Highlights Title IX in Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Globe reports that a bench trial was held in 2010 in US
District Court in the Southern District of California in a class-
action suit brought on behalf of "all present and future Castle
Park High School female students and potential students in the
Sweetwater Union School District," in Chula Vista.  In portions of
his 2012 ruling for the plaintiffs, Judge M. James Lorenz wrote:

"Title IX requires 'equal treatment,' which has been interpreted
by the OCR [Office for Civil Rights] to require 'equivalence in
the availability, quality, and kinds of other athletic benefits
and opportunities provided male and female athletes.' "

"Equal treatment claims allege sex-based differences in the
schedules, equipment, coaching, and other factors affecting
participants in athletics."

"The evidence provided at trial demonstrates that the quality,
size, and location of the locker rooms were better for male
athletes than female athletes at CPHS.  Similarly, the evidence
shows that male athletes have higher-quality practice and
competitive facilities than female athletes."


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Discussed Initial Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the consolidated merger-related lawsuit against
Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc. have discussed the scope of
preliminary discovery and document production, 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 July 20, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Callisto Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., or Callisto, as amended on October 15, 2012.  At the time,
Callisto was the Company's largest stockholder and a development
stage biopharmaceutical company.  On January 17, 2013, the Company
completed its acquisition of Callisto, pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, as amended.

On August 9, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Shona Investments v. Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 652783/2012.  The complaint names as
defendants, Callisto, each member of the Board of Callisto (the
"Individual Defendants ") and the Company.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and that the Company aided and abetted the
purported breaches of such fiduciary duties.  The relief sought
includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission (to the
extent the proposed transaction has already been consummated) and
the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company
believes the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and the Company is
contesting them.

On August 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Gary Wagner v. Gary S. Jacob, Inc., et al., Case No.
7820-VCP.  The complaint names as defendants, Callisto, the
Individual Defendants and the Company.  The complaint generally
alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and that the Company aided and abetted the purported
breaches of such fiduciary duties.  The relief sought includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the
proposed transaction, rescission (to the extent the proposed
transaction has already been consummated) and the payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes the
plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and the Company is contesting
them.

On or about November 2, 2012, counsel for the Delaware plaintiff
reached an agreement with counsel for plaintiff in the New York
action by which the plaintiffs from the two cases agreed to
conduct preliminary injunctive proceedings and discovery related
thereto in the New York action only, and during the pendency of
which the plaintiff in the Delaware action would effectively stay
any prosecution of its case.  The parties have discussed the scope
of preliminary discovery and document production.

The Company says there can be no assurance as to the outcome of
these proceedings.

Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- http://www.synergypharma.com/--
is a biopharmaceutical company focused primarily on the
development of drugs to treat gastrointestinal disorders and
diseases.  The Company is a Delaware corporation based in New
York.


TIMBER BAY: Saskatoon Judge Hears Arguments in Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Bosker, writing for News Talk CJME, reports that hundreds of
Metis children who suffered abuse while attending the Timber Bay
residential school in northern Saskatchewan are hoping their fight
for compensation will continue to move forward.

A Saskatoon judge is hearing arguments regarding a 12-year-old
class action lawsuit filed by the Merchant Law Group on behalf of
about 2,000 students who attended the school at Montreal Lake
between 1952 and 1994.

The two-day hearing wraps up on April 23 and will determine
whether the claim is legitimate, said lawyer Tony Merchant.

"By certification the court says this is a valid case that has
merit.  That's usually led to some form of settlement."

The Timber Bay School is one of many across Canada the federal
government does not recognize as a residential school.  As a
result, its former students are left ineligible for compensation
under the residential school settlement.

"The real injustice was primarily these were Metis people going to
those schools and the Indian Residential Schools got compensation
but the Metis schools did not," said Mr. Merchant.

"The government has set their own standard; arbitrarily decided
that the Montreal Lake residents wouldn't be included.  It was
most unfair, primarily to Metis people, and we're trying to remedy
that."

Mr. Merchant said Timber Bay was small in comparison to Ile-a-la-
Crosse, which too has an active class action before the courts.

"There are other homes, residences across the north [in] Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta so it's important to succeed because that
will lead to further successes," he said.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Antitrust Suit Discovery to End May 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery in the antitrust class action lawsuit involving
TravelCenters of America LLC will end on May 24, 2013, 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 April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the Company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.  On March 24, 2011, the Court
dismissed the claims against TravelCenters of America in the
amended complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file a new
amended complaint.  Four independent truck stop owners, as
plaintiffs, filed a new amended complaint against the Company on
April 21, 2011, repleading their claims.  On May 6, 2011, the
Company renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice
while discovery otherwise proceeded.  The Court denied the
Company's renewed motion to dismiss on March 29, 2012, and the
Company filed an answer to the complaint on April 30, 2012.  The
Court has set a schedule that provides that fact discovery shall
end on May 24, 2013, and trial shall begin on August 18, 2014.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it.  The Company cannot
estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit, but the continued costs to defend this
case could be significant.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/-
- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Westlake, Ohio-based Company
offers a broad range of products and services, including diesel
fuel and gasoline, truck repair and maintenance services, full
service restaurants, more than 20 different brands of quick serve
restaurants, travel and convenience stores and various driver
amenities.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Still Defends Fuel Temperature Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against lawsuits over motor fuel temperature,
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.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and the Company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refiners and retailers were named as defendants in one
or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally allege that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleges that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  A third theory, advanced more
recently in connection with plaintiffs' request for class
certification, alleges that all purchasers of fuel at any
temperature are harmed because the defendants do not use equipment
that adjusts for temperature or disclose the temperature of fuel
being sold, and thereby deprive customers of information they
allegedly require to make an informed purchasing decision.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the theories alleged in these so called "hot fuel"
lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek nonmonetary relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to install devices that
display the temperature of the fuel and/or temperature correcting
equipment on their retail fuel pumps and monetary relief in the
form of damages, but the plaintiffs have not quantified the
damages they seek.  The "tax" cases also seek monetary relief.
The Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the Company
disputes) to measure these damages as the difference between the
amount of fuel excise taxes paid by the defendants and the amount
collected by defendants on motor fuel sales.  The Plaintiffs have
taken the position in filings with the Court that under this
approach, the Company's damages for an eight-year period for one
state would be approximately $10.7 million.  The Company denies
liability and disagrees with the plaintiffs' positions.  All of
these cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-district litigation
procedures.

On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect to two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of fuel
temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel).  On January 19, 2012, the Court
amended its prior ruling, and certified a class with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for damages as well.  A TA entity
(TravelCenters of America) was named in one of those two Kansas
cases, but the Court ruled that the named plaintiffs were not
sufficient to represent a class as to TA.  TA was thereafter
dismissed from the Kansas case, and TA entities have been
dismissed voluntarily from several other cases as well.  Several
defendants in the Kansas cases, including major petroleum
refiners, have entered into multi-state settlements.

Following a September 2012 trial against the remaining defendants
in the Kansas cases, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of those Kansas defendants, and the judge likewise ruled in
the Kansas defendants' favor on the sole non-jury claim.
Recently, the Court announced that it will remand three cases
originally filed in federal district courts in California back to
their original courts, where they may be combined for trial.  A TA
entity is named in one of these three California cases.  The Court
has not issued a decision on class certification or motions for
summary judgment with respect to these or other remaining cases
that have been consolidated in the multi-district litigation.

The Company says it cannot estimate its ultimate exposure to loss
or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits, but, the
continued costs to defend these cases could be significant.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Westlake, Ohio-based Company
offers a broad range of products and services, including diesel
fuel and gasoline, truck repair and maintenance services, full
service restaurants, more than 20 different brands of quick serve
restaurants, travel and convenience stores and various driver
amenities.


UNITED STATES: Legal Aid Ordered for Mentally Disabled Immigrants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Preston, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge in California has ordered immigration courts in
three states to provide legal representation for immigrants with
mental disabilities who are in detention and facing deportation,
if they cannot represent themselves.  The decision is the first
time a court has required the government to provide legal
assistance for any group of people before the nation's immigration
courts.

The ruling by Judge Dolly M. Gee, of federal court for the Central
District of California, in Los Angeles, was handed down on
April 23 in a class-action lawsuit brought in 2010 by the American
Civil Liberties Union, among other groups.  One plaintiff in the
case is Jos‚ Antonio Franco Gonz lez, 33, an immigrant who was
detained for more than five years after his deportation case was
closed, because severe mental retardation prevented him from
arguing for himself in court or even understanding his situation.

On April 22, federal immigration officials issued a new policy
that would, in practice, expand the California ruling nationwide,
making government-paid legal representation available to people
with mental disabilities in immigration courts in every state.
The release of that policy indicates that the Justice Department,
which runs the immigration courts, broadly accepts the approach
ordered by Judge Gee.

The new practice is an unprecedented expansion of protections for
people appearing before the immigration courts, lawyers and
federal officials said.  Unlike in the criminal courts, immigrants
facing deportation or other proceedings do not have a right to a
lawyer provided by the government, if they cannot afford to pay
for one.  Children, including those who are not accompanied by
family members, and people with mental disabilities must represent
themselves to fight deportation before immigration judges if they
do not have private lawyers.

"It is the first step in recognizing that, given the complexity of
our immigration laws, it is not appropriate to force a vulnerable
population through the system without appointed counsel," Laura L.
Lichter, president of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, said on April 24.

Judge Gee also ordered immigration courts in the three states --
Arizona, California and Washington -- to offer bail hearings for
immigrants with mental disabilities who have been detained for
more than six months.

The judge said her order should take effect immediately, because
without it, mentally disabled immigrants could not "fairly
participate in removal proceedings" and could be exposed to
"prolonged detention without adequate representation."

The federal government "has long taken the position that it does
not have to provide representation for anyone in immigration court
and that has now been rejected by the court," said Ahilan
Arulanantham of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants'
Rights Project, one of the lawyers who brought the lawsuit.

"With counsel, these mentally disabled immigrants will not only
have the chance to present their best cases on why they should not
be deported," said Michael H. Steinberg, a lawyer at Sullivan &
Cromwell who worked on the case as a volunteer.  "They will also
have a chance to fight for release under bond."

Mr. Franco is an immigrant from Mexico who does not know his age,
and cannot tell time or remember telephone numbers, according to
court documents.  Detained for deportation in April 2005,
Mr. Franco was shuffled for five years among immigration detention
centers in California without a hearing to determine whether he
presented a safety risk or was mentally competent to face an
immigration judge.

Mr. Franco had to represent himself even though a psychiatrist had
determined he did not understand the proceedings.  The class-
action case started after a chance encounter between Mr. Franco
and a lawyer for Public Counsel, another nonprofit group bringing
the lawsuit.

Under Judge Gee's order, the immigration courts could provide
representation by lawyers, by students participating in law school
clinics, or by the immigration system's equivalent of a paralegal.
While there are no precise numbers of how many mentally disabled
immigrants would be affected by the new policy, lawyers estimated
it could be several thousand people a year.

Under the new guidelines by the Executive Office for Immigration
Review, the Justice Department branch in charge of the courts,
immigration judges will be able to order mental competency
hearings for immigrants who, based on medical or other records,
may have serious disorders.  The judge can order legal assistance
for an immigrant at government expense, said Lauren Alder Reid, a
spokeswoman for the immigration office.

At the request of the Obama administration, a bipartisan bill
before the Senate to overhaul the immigration system includes
provisions to provide lawyers to young unaccompanied children and
the mentally disabled in immigration court.  Justice officials
have argued that although the federal government would have new
costs to pay for legal assistance, the measures would save money
over all by reducing expensive prolonged detention for disabled
immigrants.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on April 25 disclosed that it filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of VeriFone Systems, Inc.
securities during the class period December 14, 2011 through
February 20, 2013, inclusive.  The class action seeks to recover
damages suffered by investors from the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.

If you purchased VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 20, 2013, you may, no later than May 6, 2013, request
that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.
Lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of
the purported 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 purchased VeriFone securities and are interested in
learning more about the lawsuit, please contact George Pressly,
Esq. at 1 (800) 631-6234 or e-mail George at
AskGeorge@morgansecuritieslaw.com

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
revenues and operations, by failing to disclose that: (i) the
Company failed to move to a more subscriptions-based service
model; (ii) past acquisitions masked the Company's sharply
declining revenue base; (iii) the Company inappropriately
recognized revenues in periods when such revenues should have been
deferred; (iv) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (v) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 20, 2013, VeriFone announced its preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013 to be
between $0.47 to $0.57 per share on revenue of $424 million.  This
range fell well below analysts' profit forecast of $0.73 per share
on revenue of $492 million.  The Company also announced a new
revenue recognition policy which prevented it from recognizing
some revenues in that quarter.  On this news, shareholders
hammered VeriFone's share price, causing a plunge of $13.65 on
extremely high volume to close at $18.24 per share on February 21,
2013.

                     About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan -- http://www.morgansecuritieslaw.com--
concentrates its practice in the areas of securities law, personal
injury, SEC whistleblower law, consumer protection, overtime, and
product liability.

CONTACT: Morgan & Morgan
         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: 1-800-631-6234
         E-mail: info@morgansecuritieslaw.com


VISA INC: Judge Threatens to Hold Merchant Groups in Contempt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that a
federal judge overseeing a pending $7.25 billion class-action
settlement involving Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. ordered
merchant trade groups opposed to the deal to show why they should
not be held in contempt over a Web site blasting the accord.

"The merchantsobject.com site continues to this day to obfuscate
the important differences between opting out and objecting" to the
settlement, "and it fails to adequately inform a visitor to the
site of the consequences of opting out," Judge John Gleeson wrote
in an order filed on April 24 in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

Judge Gleeson, who granted preliminary approval to the settlement
in November, had earlier ordered in April the merchant trade
groups behind the website and others to post a banner on the sites
stating information on the sites was misleading.  He gave the
trade groups until April 30 to show in writing why they shouldn't
be held in contempt of that order, which came after attorneys
representing the proposed class of merchants in the case
complained that the groups were using incorrect information on the
sites to encourage retailers to opt out and object to the deal.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 12.

In the April 24 order, Judge Gleeson also approved class
plaintiffs' request that the banners be placed on the home pages
of the websites in question.  He also ordered that the trade
associations provide notice to class plaintiffs' counsel of any
communications they intend to send out regarding the settlement.
He also gave the trade groups, including the National Association
of Convenience Stores, National Grocers Association and National
Restaurant Association, to show why the website,
merchantsobject.com, should not be taken down. Oral arguments on
the issue will be held May 3.

An attorney representing some of the trade groups that oppose the
settlement did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
April 24.

The pending settlement would end litigation filed in 2005 against
Visa, MasterCard and several large banks that issue the payment
networks' credit cards by merchants and several trade groups.  The
plaintiffs alleged that Visa, MasterCard and the banks conspire to
set transaction fees that retailers pay at arbitrarily high
levels. The fees, known as interchange, are set by Visa and
MasterCard but collected by the banks that issue their cards each
time a customer makes a purchase.

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

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

The deal has sparked opposition from large merchants like Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc., as well as several
trade groups that are named plaintiffs in the litigation.

They argue the deal grants overly broad releases from future
litigation to Visa and MasterCard and won't prevent interchange
fees from rising in the future.


ZAGG INC: Two Shareholder Class Suits Consolidated in March
-----------------------------------------------------------
The two class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of ZAGG Inc
was consolidated in March 2013, 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 September 6 and 10, 2012, two punitive class action lawsuits
were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company,
Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, Edward Ekstrom, and Cheryl
Larabee, as well as Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former
Chairman and CEO, and Shuichiro Ueyama, a former member of the
Company's Board of Directors.  The lawsuits are captioned James H.
Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District
of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; and Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et
al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859.

In each case, the plaintiffs seek certification of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between February 28, 2012, and
August 17, 2012.  The plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr.
Pedersen's alleged December 2011 margin account sales, the
defendants initiated a succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as
the Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either
the succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in
violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5
and 14a-9, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and assigned the
caption In re Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The Company has
not yet responded to the complaints.  The Company says it intends
to vigorously defend against them.

ZAGG Inc -- http://www.zagg.com/and http://www.ifrogz.com/--
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, designs, produces and
distributes creative product solutions, such as protective
coverings, keyboards, keyboard cases, earbuds, mobile power
solutions, and device cleaning accessories for mobile devices
under the family of ZAGG brands.  Within the family of ZAGG brand
are products sold under these brand names: invisibleSHIELD(R),
ZAGGskins(TM), ZAGGbuds(TM), ZAGGsparq(TM), ZAGGfolio(TM),
ZAGGmate(TM), ZAGGkeys(TM), ZAGGkeys PRO(TM), ZAGGkeys PRO
Plus(TM), ZAGGkeys PROfolio, ZAGGkeys PROfolio+, ZAGGkeys MINI 7,
and ZAGGkeys MINI 9.


ZHONGPIN INC: Faces 4 Suits Over Proposed Buyout by Xianfu Zhu
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhongpin Inc. is facing four class action lawsuits arising from
its proposed buyout by Xianfu Zhu, 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 March 27, 2012, the Company announced that its Board of
Directors had received a preliminary, non-binding proposal from
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Xianfu Zhu,
stating that Mr. Zhu intended to seek to purchase the remaining
shares of the Company that he does not presently own (the
"Proposed Buyout").  Following this announcement, at least three
lawsuits have been filed in Delaware naming the members of the
Company's Board of Directors and/or the Company as defendants.  On
November 26, 2012, the Company announced that it had entered into
a definitive merger agreement with Golden Bridge Holdings Limited,
a Cayman Islands exempted company ("Parent"), Golden Bridge Merger
Sub Limited, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub") and Mr. Xianfu Zhu (the "Merger Agreement").
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement and subject to the satisfaction
or waiver of the conditions to the transactions contemplated
thereby, at the effective time of the merger, each share of the
Company common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to
the effective time (other than shares owned by (i) Parent or
Merger Sub, (ii) Mr. Xianfu Zhu, Mr. Baoke Ben, Mr. Chaoyang Liu,
Mr. Qinghe Wang, Mr. Shuichi Si and Ms. Juanjuan Wang, (iii) the
Company or any direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company or (iv) stockholders who have properly exercised and
perfected appraisal rights under Delaware law), will be converted
automatically into the right to receive $13.50 in cash, without
interest.  Following the November 2012 announcement of the Merger
Agreement, one additional lawsuit was filed in Delaware naming as
defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors, the
Company, Parent, and Merger Sub.  The Company says it is possible
that more lawsuits will occur.

On April 3, 2012, a verified shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed by Phillip Meeks in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company and members of its Board of
Directors, alleging that, inter alia, the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Proposed Buyout, and that the price per share proposed by Mr. Zhu
represented inadequate consideration in light of the Company's
intrinsic value and future prospects, and that the Company aided
and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks
damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, including an
order preventing the Company from proceeding with the Proposed
Buyout or any transaction with Mr. Zhu, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes that
none of the defendants has yet responded to the complaint.

On April 11, 2012, a verified shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed by Richard Bauschard in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against members of the Company's Board of Directors,
alleging that, inter alia, the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Buyout, and that
the price per share proposed by Mr. Zhu represented inadequate
consideration in light of the Company's intrinsic value and future
prospects.  The plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief and
injunctive relief, including an order preventing the defendants
from proceeding with the Proposed Buyout or any transaction with
Mr. Zhu, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company believes that none of the defendants has yet
responded to the complaint.

On April 18, 2012, a verified shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed by Harry Vonderlieth in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against the Company and members of its Board of
Directors, alleging that, inter alia, the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in
connection with the Proposed Buyout, and that the price per share
proposed by Mr. Zhu represented inadequate consideration in light
of the Company's intrinsic value and future prospects, and that
the Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief,
including an order preventing the Company from proceeding with the
Proposed Buyout or any transaction with Mr. Zhu, as well as an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company
believes that none of the defendants has yet responded to the
complaint.

On December 4, 2012, after the announcement of the Company's
entering into the Merger Agreement, a verified shareholder class
action lawsuit was filed by Ernesto Rodriguez in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and members
of its Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Sub, alleging that,
inter alia, the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the Proposed Buyout and the Merger Agreement, and that the price
per share and other terms provided for in the Merger Agreement are
inadequate and unfair in light of the Company's intrinsic value
and future prospects, and that the Company, Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff
seeks damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, including
an order preventing the Company from proceeding with the Proposed
Buyout or any transaction with Mr. Zhu, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes that
none of the defendants has yet responded to the complaint.

The Company says it intends to defend against the pending class
action litigation vigorously.

In accordance with accounting standards regarding loss
contingencies, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for
those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and
the amount can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses
the amount accrued and an estimate of any reasonably possible loss
in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary
for the Company's financial statements not to be misleading.  The
Company does not accrue liabilities when the likelihood that the
liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be
reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only
reasonably possible or remote.

Because litigation outcomes are inherently unpredictable, the
evaluation of legal proceedings often involves a series of complex
assessments by management about future events and can rely heavily
on estimates and assumptions.  If the assessments indicate that
loss contingencies that could be material to any one of the
Company's financial statements are not probable, but are
reasonably possible, or are probable, but cannot be estimated,
then the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingencies,
together with an estimate of the possible loss or a statement that
such loss is not reasonably estimable.

With respect to the legal proceedings and claims, such litigation
is still in its preliminary stages and the final outcome,
including the Company's liability, if any, with respect to such
litigation, is uncertain.  At present, the Company is unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may
result from such litigation.  If an unfavorable outcome were to
occur in the litigation, the impact could be material to the
Company's business, financial condition, or results of operations.

In addition, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
maximum potential amount under the indemnification provisions
under the terms and conditions of applicable bylaws, certificates
or articles of incorporation, agreements or applicable law due to
the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the
preliminary stages of the litigation.

Zhongpin Inc. -- http://www.zpfood.com/-- was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Changge City, in the Henan
province of The People's Republic of China.  The Company is
principally engaged in the meat and food processing and
distribution business in China.


* Business Groups Wants FCC to Ease Robocall Rules
--------------------------------------------------
Brooks Boliek, writing for Politico.com, reports that business
groups representing industries from health care to banking are
pressuring the Federal Communications Commission to ease its rules
on robocalls -- saying they should get a carve-out for technology
that automatically dials customers.

In meetings with top FCC aides, executives with the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the American Bankers Association and American
Association of Health Care Administrative Management say they're
being victimized by unfair class action lawsuits brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and that the "predictive
dialers" they use should be exempt from robocall rules, according
to a document released on April 24.

Such predictive-dialing technology allows "businesses with a
legitimate need to contact large numbers of specific customers for
nontelemarketing purposes," the groups told top FCC staff during a
spate of recent meetings.

The meeting is part of an escalating fight at the commission over
the TCPA, a 1991 law designed to crack down on telemarketer
robocalls peddling goods and services.  Congress modified the law
in 2003, ordering the Federal Trade Commission to establish a Do
Not Call Registry for consumers.

Business groups say that while a predictive dialer mechanically
rings up a number, it shouldn't be lumped together with typical
robocalls that dial random numbers and connect a caller with a
recorded message.  The commission's rules have opened companies up
to litigation, they say.

"Some courts are now interpreting the commission's prior TCPA
rulings to mean that all predictive dialers are 'autodialers' even
if they do not meet the statutory definition of an 'autodialer,'"
the groups told the commission.  "As a result, companies are being
sued in TCPA class actions and are facing potentially devastating
penalties just for using predictive dialers or other new
technologies."

The business groups contend that the number of lawsuits brought
under the TCPA is approaching 500 so far this year -- nearly
double the number of such cases filed in the same period last
year. The suits generally seek between $500 and $1,500 per call,
the groups say.

According to the business groups, a change in some of the
commission's definitions can clear up the legal confusion.

"The commission can resolve much of this litigation by clarifying
that a predictive-dialer solution that does not meet the statutory
requirements of an 'autodialer' is not an 'autodialer,'" the
groups argued.


* Professor Gives Advice on How to Negate Impact of Dukes Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that the landscape for
class action plaintiffs' lawyers was radically altered in June
2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart.  The decision severely curtailed the ability of
plaintiffs to sue as a group, especially in class action cases
alleging systemic workplace discrimination.

The mark of Dukes has been pronounced.  It has been cited in 966
trial and appellate decisions on the state and federal level since
June 2011, according to data from Westlaw, a unit of Thomson
Reuters.

The legal academy has also developed an interest in the Dukes
decision, which has been cited in 299 law review articles,
according to Westlaw.  Much of this scholarship has focused on how
the case has limited the rights of plaintiffs to sue collectively.

Against this backdrop, Joseph Seiner, an employment law professor
at University of South Carolina, offered some advice to
plaintiffs' lawyers on how to negate the impact of the Dukes
decision.

In a forthcoming article for the University of Notre Dame Law
Review entitled "Weathering Wal-Mart," Mr. Seiner suggests some
potential paths to circumvent the limits of the Dukes ruling.

Mr. Seiner, who spent nearly six years as an appellate attorney
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before joining
the ranks of academia, says he was motivated to address what some
academics and plaintiffs' lawyers see as the legacy of a very bad
decision.

"I do think there is a hunger for what are some of the procedural
avenues to overcome the decision," Mr. Seiner said in an
interview. "How can we achieve a class action? "That's where I'm
trying to push the discussion."

                         Three Approaches

Despite Dukes, all is not over, Mr. Seiner writes: "The decision
still leaves room for creative approaches to systemic
discrimination."

He prescribes three broad approaches.  First, he writes, the EEOC,
as a government plaintiff, is not bound by Dukes and should bring
more broad-scale cases involving workplace discrimination.  While
noting that the EEOC is "historically underfunded," Mr. Seiner
says the agency can nevertheless achieve meaningful injunctive and
monetary relief.

Next, Mr. Seiner turns to procedural responses.  When trying
individual cases, plaintiffs' attorneys should make better use of
collateral estoppel, the doctrine that says that a determination
in one case should affect a related matter.  This can bring
plaintiffs' lawyers procedural efficiencies that they once gained
in class actions, he writes.  "By resolving common issues only
once, future cases would be streamlined, leading to significant
judicial economies," Mr. Seiner writes.

Plaintiffs should also try to consolidate individual cases against
the same employer, again achieving economies of scale on a
procedural level.

Finally, Mr. Seiner writes, plaintiffs' lawyers should try to
"cabin" Wal-Mart, by which he means making sure the decision
applies only to the very, very large class actions such as Dukes.
They should also try to take the decision "at its word," by
flooding the courts with separate individual lawsuits.

Seiner notes that his article, which is available on the online
academic database Social Science Research Network ahead of its
official publication next year, has benefited primarily from the
input of other academics, and not from practitioners.

"Now that I have something in place, the next step would be
talking to people in the plaintiffs' bar, people in the trenches,
and see if they have additional suggestions as well," Mr. Seiner
said in an interview.  "Maybe that's paper No. 2."


* Silicosis Suit Shows Lack of Class Action Procedural Rules in SA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lerato Zikalala, writing for Financial Mail, reports that
recently, high-profile court cases like the ones instituted on
behalf of miners who contracted silicosis while working in SA gold
mines have highlighted the little-known and woefully under-
developed class action procedure in SA law.

The procedure is one in which a single applicant or more bring an
action on behalf of a similarly affected group, known as a class.
The constitution makes provision for class actions, and laws like
the new Companies Act and the Consumer Protection Act specifically
provide for them, but the lack of procedural rules and law to
regulate class actions have meant their likelihood was at best
remote.

But last November the supreme court of appeal, in the case of the
Children's Resource Centre Trust vs Pioneer Foods, took the step
of ensuring that the probability of bringing a class action was
less remote and academic.  The case stems from the competition
commission investigation into price-fixing by several bread
producers.  Following the conclusion of the commission's
investigation, a number of NGOs together with Cosatu sought to
bring a class action against the bread producers on behalf of
affected consumers.  After the litigation suffered a setback in
the high court, the appeal court breathed new life into it by
allowing the class action to proceed, while simultaneously laying
down much-needed procedural rules for such litigation.

This is more than just an interesting legal development.  It is
one to which businesses should pay close attention.  Previously,
companies were relatively immune from litigation in which many
people had claims, especially small claims, because the risk of
incurring individual legal costs for potential litigants often
outweighed the potential benefit of a judgment.  Claims that would
never have been brought because litigating them was too costly for
the ordinary person can now be brought on behalf of a class of
affected people, thus increasing the likelihood of litigation and
the potential legal risk faced by companies.

Also, as illustrated in Pioneer Foods, small individual claims of
hundreds of rand, when amalgamated into a class action and
multiplied across thousands of people, escalate small-time
litigation into big-time litigation for possibly millions of rand.

The appeal court's development of the class action framework
increases the possibility of using it to enforce consumer rights.
The nature of SA society also provides fertile ground for class
actions to mushroom, especially considering that institutionalized
discrimination has often affected the levels of goods and services
and the standards of care provided to large sections of the
population.

The development of the class action procedure could bring about an
increase in actions being instituted against companies for present
and possibly historical transgressions.  The beginning of this is
the silicosis case.

Though class actions present a real opportunity to increase access
to courts because one person can act on behalf of a whole class,
thereby advancing the rights of many who ordinarily may not have
had access to courts, the procedure is one that, without adequate
safeguards, could be subject to abuse.  Some have even referred to
it as a form of legal blackmail because in certain instances the
threat of a class action and the possibility of unmanageable
litigation have been used as a means to induce a settlement.  It
is a threat to which the appeal court was alive in the Pioneer
Foods case.

The constitutional court has an opportunity to add its voice in
the development of class action litigation when it hears another
case spun off from the bread price-fixing scandal in May.
Undoubtedly the prospect of the increased use of the class action
procedure is a significant development in our law -- one on which
we should keep a close eye.


* U.S. Supreme Court Avoids Key Questions in ERISA Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that despite its recent
willingness to weigh in on the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has managed to avoid some key
questions that arise in complex ERISA class actions, leaving some
attorneys frustrated by an inconsistent legal landscape and hungry
for guidance on issues that can make or break large-scale ERISA
cases.  The nation's highest court hasn't dodged either class
action issues or ERISA suits, but it seems to be looking at class
actions and ERISA separately.


                             *********

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  * * *