CAR_Public/130513.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 93

                             Headlines


ACADIAN FINE: Recalls 17,037 Lbs. of Pork & Chicken Stew Products
AMERICAN AIRLINES: New Class Action Over Rewards Program Rejected
APPLE INC: Judge Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
ASTA FUNDING: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Affidavits
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Still Pending in ARS-Related Suits

BANK OF AMERICA: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement on Sept. 12
BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Interchange Suits in Canada
BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits Final Okay of Securities Suit Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Policemen's Annuity Suit
BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold to for too Little, Suit Claims

BUDGET RENT: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Rewards
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Still Proceeding in Class Suit
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend Short-Term Loans Suit in Ga.
CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Amara Pension Plan Suit
CIGNA CORP: Appeal From Certification Denial Pending in Ingenix

CITIBANK: Bid to Dismiss Homeowners' RICO Claims Denied
CONCEPTUS INC: Being Sold to Bayer for Too Little, Suit Claims
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Suit Over Incomplete Proxy Statement
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Royalties Class Suit
COREL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bogus Software

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Ramtron-Related Suits
DAIRY FRESH: Recalls IGA Brand "Vanilla & Chocolate" Ice Cream
DENNY'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Claw Machine"
DIAMOND FOODS: Consolidated Securities Suit Granted Class Status
EBIX INC: Being Sold For Too Little to Goldman, Suit Claims

ENTRUST GROUP: Faces Suit Over Helping Bogus "Investing Guru"
FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 19,640 Optimus Tower Quartz Heaters
FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Lexapro
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Using Information From Gmail
HALLIBURTON CO: Must Face Class Action Over Defrauding Customers

HAWAII: 32 Judges Foster "Flipping" of Properties, Suit Claims
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Suit Over Paying Exempt-Status Salary
JPMORGAN CHASE: Allowed Traders to Lose Billions, Suit Claims
L'OREAL: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertising 24H Makeup
MARISSA TEVES: Faces Class Action Over RICO Violations

MCGRAW-HILL COS: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Reese" Suit
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Dismissal of "Gearren" & "Sullivan" Suits Final
MICHIGAN: Grand Rapids Police Sued for Routinely Arresting People
MICROSOFT CORP: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Personal Info
NEW YORK: Police Sued Over "Manufactured Misdemeanors"

NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits by Steel Purchasers
NY METHODIST HOSPITAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
PACKAGING CORP: Consolidated Price-Fixing Suit Still in Discovery
PENGUIN GROUP: Faces Class Action for Cheating Writers
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Calls for Guidance on Medical Monitoring

POWER-ONE: Being Sold to ABB for Too Little, Suit Claims
PROLOR BIOTECH: Being Sold to Opko for Too Little, Suit Claims
PROVIDE COMMERCE: Judge Approves Settlement on 2 Class Actions
SAFETY-KLEEN: Contract Breach Suit Remanded to State Court
SEACOR HOLDINGS: 5th Cir. Affirmed Judgment in "Robin" Suit

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wunstell" Suit in Louisiana
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motions
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Expects Suit Settlements to Reduce Unit Exposure
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Deepwater Horizon FLSA Suits
SOTHEBY'S INC: Appeal From "Graham" Suit Dismissal Still Pending

SPECTRUM PHARMA: Allos Unit Settled Merger Class Suits in Feb.
TELULAR CORP: Being Sold to Avista for Too Little, Suit Claims
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Charging "YQ"
UNITED BANKSHARES: Accrued $3.3MM in Settlement of Class Suits
VOLVO AG: Faces Action Over Misrepresenting Side-Impact System

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misbranding Product
YANKEE CANDLE: Faces Overtime Class Action


                             *********


ACADIAN FINE: Recalls 17,037 Lbs. of Pork & Chicken Stew Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadian Fine Foods, LLC, a Church Point, Louisiana establishment,
is recalling approximately 17,037 pounds of pork stew and chicken
stew products because of misbranding and undeclared allergens.
The products contain whey and soy, known allergens which are not
declared on the product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 12-oz. single-serve bowls of "Savoie's Cajun Singles
     Louisiana Pork Stew" bearing the establishment number
     "Est. 13587" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The
     products were produced on various dates from May 24, 2012,
     through March 21, 2013.  The product packages bear "Use By"
     dates from May 24, 2013, through March 21, 2014.

   * 12-oz. single-serve bowls of "Savoie's Cajun Singles
     Louisiana Chicken Stew" bearing the establishment number
     "P-13587" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products
     were produced on various dates from June 6, 2012, through
     February 25, 2013.  The product packages bear "Use By" dates
     from June 6, 2013, through February 25, 2014.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/F3aEja

The products were distributed for retail sale in Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review.
Whey and soy are subingredients in the chicken base used to make
the product.  The Company changed chicken bases and the labels did
not reflect the change in ingredients.  FSIS and the Company have
received no reports of adverse reactions associated with
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an adverse
reaction should see a health care professional.

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 and the media with questions about the recall should
contact Jim Miller, Acadian Fine Foods' Plant Manager, at (337)
684-6933.

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.  For
information on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry or
processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit
http://is.gd/vlfH9I

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Wal-mart stores in Louisiana, Mississippi
and Texas received Stew Products that have been recalled by
Acadian Fine Foods, LLC.

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/F3aEja,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.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: New Class Action Over Rewards Program Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Services reports American
Airlines cannot face a class action over its new miles rewards
program because it previously settled claims over the policy
change, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled.

American Airlines introduced its AAdvantage program in 1981,
promising air miles that had no expiration date.

Seven years later, the airline changed the rewards system so that
"New Miles" earned from July 1, 1989, on would have an expiration
date.  It also started enforcing "capacity controls" on old miles,
limiting the number of seats on each flight that could be
redeemed.

Customers immediately opposed the policy change with a class
action lawsuit filed in Illinois, which eventually reached the
Supreme Court before it was settled.

Under the terms of the settlement in that case, American Airlines,
Inc. v. Wolens, the class gave the company wide latitude to
"change the AAdvantage Program rules, regulations, travel awards,
and special offers at any time with or without notice."

American Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
November 2011, and told their customers that the company would
convert all remaining old miles into new miles, subjecting them to
an expiration date.

Frequent fliers Karen Ross and Steve Edelman, who were both
members of the Wolens case, filed a new class action protesting
this change on Sept. 14, 2012.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane threw out the new suit under the
doctrine of res judicata, Latin for "a matter [already] judged."

"If plaintiffs did not consider the claims they now bring to be
part of the Wolens settlement, then they should have balked at the
injunction language contained in the settlement agreement and
final order -- language to which they agreed -- that released all
claims the parties had 'known or unknown' or 'in any way related
to' the claims being released therein," the April 22 decision
states.  "This language is extremely broad and unforgiving for the
plaintiffs' arguments.  Short of drafting an infinite list of
every specific claim they could possibly imagine, American could
not have bargained for a more sweeping release."


APPLE INC: Judge Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple can
settle claims that it failed to get parental consent before
letting minors buy game currency for so-called free apps, a
federal judge ruled.

The settlement provides all class members with a minimum $5 iTunes
store credit or cash payment for those who no longer have an
iTunes account, according to court documents.

Several consumers had brought federal class actions, which were
consolidated in the Northern District of California, after they
received iTunes bills for purchases their children had made while
using applications on their Apple devices.

Garn Meguerian filed the first of the complaints in April 2011,
claiming that Apple made "millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains"
by selling game currency to children via so-called "free" apps.

Apple requires a password to download applications and buy game
currency through its devices and retail outlets, but a user has 15
minutes to buy stuff once the password is entered before being
prompted again, according to Meguerian's complaint .

"This practice enabled minors to buy Game Currency, in one click
sums of $99.99 or more, without entering a password, causing Apple
to pocket millions of dollars from such Game Currency transactions
with minors and without the authorization of their parents, whose
credit cards or PayPal accounts are automatically charged for the
purchases," according to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila granted the proposed settlement
preliminary approval, calling it fair, and saying the minimum $5
payout was "adequate, if not exceptional."

Consumers who want a refund are required under the settlement to
submit a claim form attesting that they paid for game currency
without authorizing the charges, and that they have not already
received a refund.

Alternatively class members can elect to receive an iTunes store
credit or a cash refund in an amount equal to the aggregate total
of all qualified game currency charges within a single 45-day
period for which they did not already receive a refund, according
to court documents.

The settlement also allows class members to request funds for
qualified charges that occurred after the 45-day period in a claim
for aggregate relief if they can explain how a minor made the
purchases in question.

Under the terms of the settlement, Apple agreed to post settlement
documents in English and Spanish on a website maintained
exclusively for the settlement.  It will also send the documents
by email or regular mail at no charge to class members who call a
toll-free number set up for the settlement.

Apple will additionally email settlement documents to every person
who paid for one or more game currency purchase during the
relevant period.  The company will send the documents by regular
mail to any such person whose email address is no longer valid,
according to court documents.

Davila ordered any class members seeking to be excluded from the
settlement to send a request saying so by July 31.

The judge set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for
Oct. 18.


ASTA FUNDING: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Affidavits
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Asta Funding et al. used
fraudulent affidavits and "sewer service" to seek millions of
dollars in judgments for charged-off consumer debts to (nonparty)
AT&T Wireless, a class action claims in Federal Court.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Still Pending in ARS-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 4, 2008, two putative antitrust class actions were
filed against Bank of America Corporation, Merrill Lynch and other
financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiffs in both actions assert federal
antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on
allegations that defendants conspired to restrain trade in ARS by
placing support bids in ARS auctions, only to collectively
withdraw those bids in February 2008, which allegedly caused ARS
auctions to fail. In the first action, Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of issuers of ARS that defendants underwrote
between May 12, 2003 and February 13, 2008. This issuer action
seeks to recover, among other relief, the alleged above-market
interest payments that ARS issuers allegedly have had to make
after defendants allegedly stopped placing "support bids" in ARS
auctions. In the second action, Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup,
Inc., et al., plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors
that purchased ARS from defendants and held those securities when
ARS auctions failed on February 13, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to
recover, among other relief, unspecified damages for losses in the
ARS' market value, and rescission of the investors' ARS purchases.
Both actions also seek treble damages and attorneys' fees under
the Sherman Act's private civil remedy.

On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed both actions with
prejudice and plaintiffs' respective appeals are currently pending
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to
Bank of America Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.


BANK OF AMERICA: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement on Sept. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of a class settlement agreement in In
Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation is scheduled for September 12, 2013, according to Bank
of America Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), named Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and BHCs, including the Corporation, as defendants. Plaintiffs
allege that defendants conspired to fix the level of default
interchange rates, which represent the fee an issuing bank charges
an acquiring bank on every transaction. Plaintiffs also challenged
as unreasonable restraints of trade under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and MasterCard
related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the point of
sale. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief
based on their assertion that interchange would be lower or
eliminated absent the alleged conduct.

In addition, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against
certain defendants, including the Corporation, relating to initial
public offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa. Plaintiffs
alleged that the IPOs violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs also asserted that the
MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance. Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs.

On October 19, 2012, defendants entered an agreement to settle the
class plaintiffs' claims. The defendants also separately agreed to
resolve the claims brought by a group of individual retailers that
opted out of the class to pursue independent litigation.

The settlement agreements provide for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) distribution to class
merchants of an amount equal to 10 bps of default interchange
across all Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions for a
period of eight consecutive months, to begin by July 29, 2013,
which otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which
effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time;
and (iii) modifications to Visa and MasterCard rules regarding
merchant point of sale practices.

Subject to the loss-sharing agreements the Corporation and certain
affiliates previously entered with Visa, MasterCard and other
financial institutions, the Corporation will contribute a total of
$738 million to the settlement of the class and individual
actions. Of that amount, $539 million will be paid from the
proceeds that Visa previously placed into an escrow fund pursuant
to Visa's Retrospective Responsibility Plan (the RRP) to cover the
Corporation's share of Visa-related claims.

The court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement
agreement on November 9, 2012, over the objections of several
class members. The objecting class members appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied appellants'
motion for expedited appeal and deferred briefing until after
final approval of the settlement. The final approval hearing is
scheduled for September 12, 2013.


BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Interchange Suits in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself from
interchange-related class action lawsuits filed in Canada,
according to the Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On March 28, 2011, an action entitled Watson v. Bank of America
Corp. (Watson) was filed on in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Canada, by a purported nationwide class of merchants
that accept Visa and/or MasterCard credit cards in Canada. The
action names as defendants Visa, MasterCard, and a number of other
banks and BHCs, including the Corporation. The action alleges that
defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount fees that
merchants pay to acquiring banks on credit card transactions. It
also alleges that defendants conspired to impose certain rules
relating to merchant acceptance of credit cards at the point of
sale. The action asserts claims under section 45 of the
Competition Act and other common law claims, and seeks unspecified
damages and injunctive relief based on the assertion that merchant
discount fees would be lower absent the challenged conduct. The
action is not covered by the RRP or loss-sharing agreements
previously entered in connection with certain antitrust
litigation, including Interchange. In addition to Watson, the
Corporation has been named as a defendant in similar putative
class action claims filed in other jurisdictions in Canada.


BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits Final Okay of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation awaits final approval of settlement in
Consolidated Securities Class Action, according to the
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Plaintiffs (Securities Plaintiffs) in the securities class action
in the Consolidated Action (Consolidated Securities Class Action)
asserted claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities
Act) and asserted damages based on the drop in the stock price
upon subsequent disclosures.

In February 2012, the court granted a motion for class
certification. On November 30, 2012, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement. The agreement, which is subject to court
approval, provides for a payment by the Corporation of $2.4
billion, an amount that was fully accrued as of September 30,
2012, and the institution and/or continuation of certain corporate
governance enhancements until the later of January 1, 2015 or 18
months following the court's final approval of the settlement. In
exchange, Securities Plaintiffs released their claims against all
defendants and certain other persons or entities affiliated with
defendants.

On December 4, 2012, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduling a final
settlement hearing for April 5, 2013.


BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Policemen's Annuity Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend Policemen's
Annuity Litigation, according to the Corporation's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On April 11, 2012, the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the
City of Chicago, on its own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
class of purchasers of 41 RMBS trusts collateralized by Washington
Mutual-originated (WaMu) mortgages, filed a proposed class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, entitled Policemen's Annuity and Benefit
Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America, NA and U.S. Bank
National Association. BANA and U.S. Bank are named as defendants
in their capacities as trustees, with BANA (formerly LaSalle Bank
National Association) having served as the original trustee and
U.S. Bank having replaced BANA as trustee. Plaintiff asserts
claims under the federal Trust Indenture Act as well as state
common law claims. Plaintiff alleges that, in light of the
performance of the RMBS at issue, and in the wake of publicly-
available information about the quality of loans originated by
WaMu, the trustees were required to take certain steps to protect
plaintiff's interest in the value of the securities, and that
plaintiff was damaged by defendants' failures to notify it of
deficiencies in the loans and of defaults under the relevant
agreements, to ensure that the underlying mortgages could properly
be foreclosed, and to enforce remedies available for loans that
contained breaches of representations and warranties. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and/or equitable relief,
and costs and expenses.

On December 7, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiff leave to
replead some of the dismissed claims. The court ruled, among other
things, that plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on behalf of
purchasers of certificates in certain tranches of
five trusts. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
January 13, 2013, which added plaintiffs and asserted claims
concerning 19 trusts.


BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold to for too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Buckeye
Technologies are selling the company too cheaply to Georgia-
Pacific, for $37.50 a share or $1.5 billion, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.


BUDGET RENT: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Rewards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the car
rental company Budget cannot dismiss claims that its rewards
program came at a secret charge of 75 cents per rental day, a
federal judge ruled.

While making an online reservation with Budget Rent a Car for
Stephanie Klein on July 14, 2012, Daniel Klein says he was
prompted to enter her United Mileage Plus number for the "perk" of
earning frequent flyer miles at no additional cost.

Days later, however, Stephanie found in the car an itemized rental
agreement, which -- unlike her confirmation screen and email
confirmation -- included a 75-cent "FTP SUR" charge.  The
surcharge was also listed on receipts Stephanie received upon
returning the car.

The Kleins filed a federal class action in New Jersey against
Budget and its corporate stock holder, Avis Budget Car Rental LLC,
on Nov. 27, claiming their website is designed to "bury" the
surcharge.  They assert claims for violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract and bad faith.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares dismissed the claims against
Avis, but said the Kleins can carry on suing Budget.

"Plaintiffs' unsupported claim that '[Avis Budget Car Rental] ABCR
controls the Budget website' is, at best, a legal conclusion
draped in the guise of a factual allegation," Linares wrote.
"Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) does not require the court to credit
such a conclusion.  Consequently, the court grants defendants'
motion to dismiss all claims against ABCR without prejudice."

He preserved the claims against Budge by citing precedent from the
2012 decisions Mendez v. Avis Budget Group and Schwartz v. Avis
Rent a Car System.

These cases show that a complaint must "support[] the plausible
inference that defendant intentionally concealed information about
a 75-cent per rental day surcharge for frequent-flyer miles and
reward points," Linares wrote.  "In the instant matter this court
also relies on Mendez and concludes that plaintiffs have made a
sufficient factual showing to support the plausible inference that
Budget intentionally failed to disclose the surcharge."

Budget must also face a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

"The complaint alleges Budget 'advertised' frequent-flyer miles
and reward points at no additional charge to plaintiffs, the
'bait,' and then subsequently charged them, the 'switch,'" Linares
wrote.  "In light of these allegations, the court holds that
plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a 'bait-and-switch' scheme."

Ambiguity will meanwhile keep the Kleins' contract and bad faith
claims alive.

"The complaint raises a plausible inference that whether the
contract in fact included the surcharge terms disclosed in the
'pop-up' window is ambiguous," Linares wrote.  "The existence of
such alleged ambiguity raises an issue of fact and, consequently,
the court declines to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claim
at this time."

Headquartered in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, N.J., Budget has
more than 3,000 locations in more than 120 countries.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Still Proceeding in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still proceeding in In re Cablevision Consumer
Litigation, according to the Form 10-K filed by Cablevision
Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on
October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the
programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations
and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television
systems.  On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an
agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and
networks, and carriage was restored.  Several purported class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's
customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those
lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer was filed on
May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.  The Company's brief in opposition to the
motion was filed on January 17, 2013.  On December 13, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The
Company's brief in opposition was filed on January 31, 2013.
Discovery is also proceeding. The Company believes that this claim
is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend Short-Term Loans Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., continues to defend a class
action lawsuit in Georgia over alleged illegal short-term loans,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together
with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different
causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash
America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of
Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). First
National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB") and Community
State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some time made
loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia
operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that
Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to
Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in the
process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit
alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and was
illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the
trebling of any compensatory damages.

In November 2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit.
In August 2011, Cash America filed a motion for summary judgment,
and in October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment. Hearings on the motions were held in
October and November 2011, and the trial court entered an order
granting summary judgment in favor of Cash America on one of the
plaintiff's claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion
and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary
judgment. Cash America filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia
Court of Appeals in December 2011 on the grant of plaintiff's
partial summary judgment, and on November 6, 2012, the Georgia
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of partial
summary judgment to plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court's
denial of Cash America's motion for summary judgment.

Cash America filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme
Court of Georgia to appeal the decision of the Georgia Court of
Appeals regarding Cash America's motion for summary judgment on
November 26, 2012, which was denied on February 18, 2013. The
Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses for this litigation. Cash America believes that
the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and is
vigorously defending this lawsuit.


CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Amara Pension Plan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation continues to defend Amara Cash Balance Pension
Plan Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan, in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the Cigna Pension Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The
plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations including, among other
things, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
older employees; the conversion resulted in a wear away period
(when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and these conditions are not adequately
disclosed in the Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear away claims. However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula
for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive
their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion Cigna Pension Plan
and their post-1997 accrued benefits under the
post-conversion Cigna Pension Plan. The court also ordered, among
other things, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Both parties appealed the court's decisions to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that issued a decision on
October 6, 2009 affirming the District Court's judgment and order
on all issues. On January 4, 2010, both parties filed separate
petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. Cigna's petition was granted, and on May 16, 2011, the
Supreme Court issued its Opinion in which it reversed the lower
courts' decisions and remanded the case to the trial judge for
reconsideration of the remedy. The Court unanimously agreed with
the Company's position that the lower courts erred in granting a
remedy for an inaccurate plan description under an ERISA provision
that allows only recovery of plan benefits. However, the decision
identified possible avenues of "appropriate equitable relief" that
plaintiffs may pursue as an alternative remedy. The case was
returned to the trial court and hearings took place on December 9,
2011 and March 29-30, 2012. Over the summer, the trial judge
passed away after a long illness and the case was re-assigned.

On December 20, 2012, the new trial judge issued a decision
awarding equitable relief to the class. The court's order requires
the Company to reform the pension plan to provide a substantially
identical remedy to that ordered by the first trial judge in 2008.
Both parties appealed the order and the judge stayed
implementation of the order pending resolution of the appeals. In
light of the re-affirmed remedy ordered by the District Court, the
Company was required to re-evaluate its reserve for this case. Due
to the current economic environment of low interest rates that
have a significant impact on the valuation of potential future
pension benefits, the Company was required to increase its reserve
for this matter in the fourth quarter of 2012. The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position in this case.


CIGNA CORP: Appeal From Certification Denial Pending in Ingenix
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation is opposing an appeal from the denial of a
motion to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs
related to Ingenix, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 13, 2008, State of New York Attorney General Andrew M.
Cuomo announced an industry-wide investigation into the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare,
used to calculate payments for services provided by out-of-network
providers. The Company received four subpoenas from the New York
Attorney General's office in connection with this investigation
and responded appropriately. On February 17, 2009, the Company
entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance resolving the
investigation. In connection with the industry-wide resolution,
the Company contributed $10 million to the establishment of a new
non-profit company that now compiles and provides the data
formerly provided by Ingenix.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue. All of the class actions were consolidated
into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.,
that is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed
on August 7, 2009, asserts claims under ERISA, the RICO statute,
the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations.

On September 23, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The court dismissed all claims by the health care
provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing
to sue, and as a result the case will proceed only on behalf of
subscribers. In addition, the court dismissed all of the antitrust
claims, the ERISA claims based on disclosure and the New Jersey
state law claims. The court did not dismiss the ERISA claims for
benefits and claims under the RICO statute.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of
subscriber plaintiffs on December 19, 2011, which was denied on
January 16, 2013. Plaintiffs petitioned for an immediate appeal of
the order denying class certification, that the Company opposed.

It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional
litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company
with respect to use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc. The Company
denies the allegations asserted in the investigations and
litigation and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.


CITIBANK: Bid to Dismiss Homeowners' RICO Claims Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
Angela Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that Citibank
must face claims that it defrauded homeowners by padding the fees
they charge on the delinquent accounts, a federal judge ruled.

Gloria Stitt is the lead named plaintiff in a class action against
Citibank and Citimortgage for violations of federal anti-
racketeering law, conspiracy to violate RICO, unjust enrichment,
and fraud.  They say Citi colluded with subsidiaries, affiliates
and vendors on a profit-making scheme to "unlawfully mark up
default-related fees."  The vendors allegedly padded fees "often
by 100% or more," but never informed borrowers of the markups or
profits.  The borrowers also claim Citi routinely assessed fees
that were unnecessary, such as ordering monthly property
inspections although inspections were not needed.  One class
member's home was allegedly inspected more than 30 times in three
years.

Citi moved to dismiss the complaint, but U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers pruned only the RICO claims.  She gave the
prospective class 21 days to try again with an amended complaint.

The bank argued that its actions followed the terms of the
mortgage agreements and represented normal business practices.

In preserving the borrowers' fraud claim, the court pointed to
several authorities that imposed a duty to disclose material
information, such as mark-ups, on lenders.  Jurors could find that
Citi's failure to itemize "delinquency expenses" and mark-ups on
mortgage statements could be characterized as fraud, according to
the ruling.

The court declined to determine if the mortgage agreements
protected Citibank from the unjust enrichment claim, stating a
decision on the issue was "premature for the court."  There were
no "specific factual allegations," however, to demonstrate that
Citibank's actions were the conduct of an enterprise and
racketeering activity, as defined by RICO, Rogers said.  The
borrowers offered vague allegations regarding the possible
structure of an enterprise but no explanation of how the various
groups worked together to defraud borrowers in default, according
to the ruling.


CONCEPTUS INC: Being Sold to Bayer for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Conceptus is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to Bayer, for $1.1 billion
or $31 a share, shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Suit Over Incomplete Proxy Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Consolidated Edison's proxy
statement for the May 20 shareholders meeting fails to disclose
the effect upon stockholders of its plan to grant 5 million shares
to its directors, shareholders say in a class action in New York
County Supreme Court.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Royalties Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc., continues to defend an alleged class
action filed by royalty interest owners in Oklahoma, according to
its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged. The Company is
not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range
of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to
the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, the production years
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. The
class has not been certified. Plaintiffs have indicated that if
the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $145
million, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The
Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets
the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending
the case.


COREL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bogus Software
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Corel and WinZip sell bogus software that claims to detect
"damage" on personal computers that needs to be fixed.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Ramtron-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation seeks dismissal of class action
lawsuits related to its acquisition of Ramtron International
Corporation, according to its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2012.

The Company states: "As a result of our acquisition of Ramtron, we
have assumed control of certain ongoing litigation involving
Ramtron, including certain shareholder litigation related to the
Ramtron acquisition. On October 15, 2012, Paul Dent ("Plaintiff
Dent"), a stockholder of Ramtron, filed a complaint in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware, as a class action on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated Ramtron stockholders.
Plaintiff Dent alleges that Ramtron and certain of its directors
and officers breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the merger agreement pursuant to which we agreed to acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Ramtron for $3.10 a share in cash.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Ramtron and certain of
its directors and officers failed to engage in a competitive
process and disclose fully all material information relating to
the Board's recommendation to Ramtron's stockholders to tender
shares to Cypress. On October 22, 2012, Plaintiff Dent added us
and Cypress's wholly-owned subsidiary Rain Acquisition Corporation
as defendants to the case and petitioned the court for expedited
proceedings and a preliminary injunction. On November 19, 2012,
the Delaware Chancery Court ruled in our favor, denying
plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and finding there was no
material information withheld from the shareholders of Ramtron.
The case was effectively dismissed following the ruling. However,
on January 11, 2013, Plaintiff Dent filed an amended complaint on
similar grounds, with allegations also directed towards Cypress
for aiding and abetting Ramtron's directors and officers. The
relief sought by the amended complaint includes an order declaring
the action to be properly maintainable as a class action, an award
of the fair value of the Ramtron shares plus interest, damages
including rescissory damages plus interest, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs. We believe strongly that this case is
without merit and we intend to defend it vigorously and plan to
promptly file a motion to dismiss. Because the case is at a very
early stage and no specific monetary demand has been made, it is
not possible for us to estimate the potential loss or range of
potential losses.

"On October 3, 2012, Allan P. Weber ("Plaintiff Weber"), a
purported Ramtron stockholder, also filed a putative class action
complaint against Ramtron, certain of its officers and directors,
and Cypress and its wholly-owned subsidiary Rain Acquisition
Corporation in Colorado state district court in El Paso County,
Colorado. Plaintiff Webber alleges that the directors and officers
of Ramtron breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger agreement, pursuant to which Cypress agreed to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Ramtron for $3.10 per share in cash.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the officer and directors
of Ramtron violated their fiduciary duties by failing to take
steps to maximize the value of Ramtron to its public stockholders
and took steps to avoid competitive bidding, failed to properly
value Ramtron, and ignored or did not protect against conflicts of
interest. The complaint accuses Cypress of aiding and abetting the
Ramtron directors and officers. The relief sought by Plaintiff
Webber includes an order declaring the lawsuit as a class action
and certifying Plaintiff Weber as class representative and his
counsel as class counsel, an injunction to prevent the merger, an
order rescinding the merger or awarding Plaintiff rescissory
damages in the event the merger is consummated prior to entry of
the court's final judgment, damages, profits and any special
benefits obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
wrongdoing, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff
Webber has taken no action since the complaint was filed and we
have petitioned the court to have the case dismissed. We believe
this the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it
vigorously. Because the case is at a very early stage and no
specific monetary demand has been made, it is not possible for us
to estimate the potential loss or range of potential losses."


DAIRY FRESH: Recalls IGA Brand "Vanilla & Chocolate" Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dairy Fresh is voluntarily recalling a specific batch of IGA Brand
"Vanilla & Chocolate" Ice Cream (1.75 quart, 1.66 L) with the
plant code "3783" and a SELL BY date of 08-13-13 because it
incorrectly contains Heavenly Hash ice cream, which contains
almonds, coconut, and soy, which are allergens not declared on the
carton.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
almonds, coconut, or soy run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.  The
Company is aware of one consumer who experienced an allergic
reaction after consuming the product manufactured with the "SELL
BY" date of 08-13-13.  The Company is not aware of any other
complaint or illness to date related to this issue.

In an abundance of caution, the Company is also recalling Vanilla
& Chocolate ice cream dated between 06-08-13 and 08-27-13.  The
specific dates are listed below.

A small number of Vanilla & Chocolate packages were inadvertently
used when the company was producing Heavenly Hash ice cream.  As a
result, a consumer may purchase a Vanilla & Chocolate package that
contains Heavenly Hash ice cream.

This product is produced by the Dairy Fresh processing facility in
Winston Salem, North Carolina, and is sold at IGA stores.

                                             Sell by    Plant
Size      Name     Flavor      UPC #         Dates     code
----      ----     ------      -----        -------    ----
1.75 qt   IGA      Vanilla &   4127046131   06-08-13   3783
(1.66 L)  Brand    Chocolate                07-19-13
                                             08-02-13
                                             08-13-13
                                             08-27-13

This product is produced by the Dairy Fresh processing facility in
Winston Salem, North Carolina, and is sold at IGA stores.  All
Vanilla & Chocolate cartons carry the above referenced Universal
Product Code (UPC) and plant code "3783."  Pictures of the
recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm351600.htm

Consumers who purchased the product may discard it and return the
product package to the place of purchase for a full refund or
exchange.  Consumers with questions can contact Dairy Fresh 1-800-
587-2259 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.


DENNY'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Claw Machine"
----------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that the "claw
machine," in which kids try to drop a claw onto a stuffed animal,
is an illegal gambling operation and should be shut down, a woman
claims in a class action against Denny's.

Ashley Cheesbrough sued Denny's in Superior Court.  Cheesbrough
claims that Denny's "engaged in unlawful business acts to earn
higher profits by exposing its patrons to illegal gambling devices
and providing them with opportunities to gamble.  Denny's conduct
violates public policies tethered to laws that are designed to
protect the public against the deleterious effects of gambling."
She claims that Denny's encourages illegal gambling by offering
"games of chance" in the arcade sections of its restaurants.

"Within these arcade sections are games that require the player to
insert money (usually quarters) into the machine and offer the
player a chance to win stuffed dolls, toys, or other prizes.  Such
machines include, but are not limited to, claw machines.  However,
these machines are illegal gambling devices that require little or
no skill and are predominantly games of chance.  The Bureau of
Gambling Control has declared that machines including but not
limited to claw machines are 'common types of illegal devices'
under California Penal Code sections 330a, 330b, and 330.1," the
complaint states.

A claw machine player uses a joystick to drop a claw one time onto
a stuffed animal or another prize.

Courthouse News conducted in-house interviews to determine whether
anyone ever wins an animal at the claw game.  One highly placed
source claimed he never saw anyone win.  Another source, however,
said the trick was to watch others lose first, and see which
animals are loosely packed.  When the losers leave, the trick is
to go after the loosely packed animal.

Cheesbrough states: "If the claw fails to retrieve a prize, the
player loses.  If the claw grips a prize, it lifts the prize up
and ascends to the top of the machine and rattles, often knocking
the prize out of the claw and the player loses.  On occasion, the
prize does not get rattled out of the claw, and the claw moves to
the corner of the machine and releases its content.  The prize is
dropped into the opening and dispensed into a hatch for
collection."

Cheesbrough claims the claw machines are illegal gambling devices
because they are games of chance, not games of skill.

"Unlike many other arcade games (e.g. Pac-Man, Skeeball, pinball,
etc.) which require hand-eye coordination, concentration, and
physical skill, the outcome of operation of claw machines is based
entirely or predominantly on chance or hazard.  In other words,
the player has no ability to control the outcome.  The Bureau of
Gaming Control clarified that a lawful device is one that is
predominantly a game of skill 'on which what can be won is limited
to additional chances or free plays.  If, however, the player has
paid to play and can win something other than additional plays,
such as food, toys or other prizes, the machines does [sic] not
qualify for the amusement device exception and is an illegal
gambling device."

Cheesbrough claims that even if claw machines were games of skill,
the fact that users play to win physical prizes makes them
illegal.  By having claw machines in its restaurants, Cheesbrough
says, Denny's is contributing to the problem of gambling addiction
in kids and adults.

"Gambling addiction is a serious and devastating problem for many
adults and a growing problem among children.  The Royal College of
Psychiatrists concluded that 'all gaming machines, regardless of
the size of the stake or the amount of prize money, are unsuitable
for children and young people.'  The Royal College of
Psychiatrists strongly recommends that they should cease to be
made legally available to them," the complaint states.

Cheesbrough says she personally lost money trying to win prizes
out of claw machines at Denny's, and never would have played them
had she "known that the machine was an illegal gambling device."

The complaint does not say how much money she lost playing the
game.  But she claims that she and other class members will
continue to lose money and Denny's will "retain proceeds of its
ill-gotten gains" unless the court orders Denny's to remove the
claw machines and other games of chance from its restaurants.  She
seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, disgorgement and
restitution for unfair competition and business law violations.

She is represented by Gene J. Stonebarger of Folsom and counsel
James R. Patterson of San Diego.


DIAMOND FOODS: Consolidated Securities Suit Granted Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup issued an order granting a motion to
certify a class in IN RE: DIAMOND FOODS, INC., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, No. C 11-05386 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

A number of putative class actions were filed on behalf of
investors who purchased securities of Diamond Foods, Inc.  The
actions were consolidated and the Mississippi Public Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff.  The Defendants
include Diamond, Deloitte & Touche LLP (Diamond's outside
auditor), and individual defendants Michael J. Mendes (former
Chairman of the Board and President and Chief Executive Officer of
Diamond) and Steven M. Neil (former Chief Financial Officer of
Diamond).

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Defendants
deliberately understated commodity costs -- specifically, the
costs of walnuts -- and improperly accounted for payments made to
walnut growers to increase apparent profits and maintain high
share prices.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were
motivated to inflate share prices during a period in which Diamond
was seeking to use its stock to acquire Pringles, a snack chip
brand owned by Proctor & Gamble Co.  When the truth became known,
Diamond's stock price declined dramatically, resulting in
financial losses to those who purchased the stock at the inflated
price.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants and asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the two individual defendants, CEO Mendes and CFO
Neil. The complaint also alleges false and misleading statements
relating to payments made to walnut growers.  Upon motion by lead
plaintiff MSPERS, attorneys from the law firms of Chitwood Harley
Harnes LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP were
appointed as class counsel.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which was granted as to Deloitte and
denied as to the remaining defendants.  The Plaintiff has moved
for class certification.  Defendant Diamond filed an opposition to
the motion, to which the remaining defendants filed motions for
joinder.

On May 6, 2013, Judge Alsup ruled that short sellers should be
excluded from the class definition, and certified the class
defined as:

   All persons and entities who purchased publicly traded
   securities of Diamond Foods, Inc. ("Diamond" or the "Company")
   during the period from October 5, 2010 through and including
   February 8, 2012, and who suffered damages as a result.
   Excluded from the Class are (1) Diamond, Michael J. Mendes
   ("Mendes"), Steven M. Neil ("Neil") (collectively, the
   "Defendants"); (2) any person who was an officer or director of
   the Company during the Class Period; (3) members of the
   immediate families of any Defendants; (4) any firm, trust,
   corporation, officer or other entity in which any defendant has
   a controlling interest; and (5) the legal representatives,
   heirs, successors or assigns and any such excluded party. The
   Class also excludes short sales of Diamond securities and
   subsequent purchases of Diamond securities to cover short
   sales.

The Court directed the parties to jointly submit, within 21
calendar days of the date of entry of the order, an agreed-upon
form of notice, a joint proposal for dissemination of the notice,
and the timeline for opting out of the action.

The Plaintiff must bear the costs of the notice, which will
include mailing by first-class mail, Judge Aslup said.

A copy of the District Court's May 6, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/RmCkXJfrom Leagle.com.


EBIX INC: Being Sold For Too Little to Goldman, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ebix is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to Goldman Sachs et al., for
$20 a share or $820 million, shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


ENTRUST GROUP: Faces Suit Over Helping Bogus "Investing Guru"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Entrust Group helped a bogus "investing guru" roll people for
$27 million in a self-directed IRA Ponzi scam, a woman who says
she lost $199,000 claims in a federal class action.

Judith Sams sued Entrust Arizona LLC nka Vantage Retirement Plans,
the Entrust Group Inc., Entrust Administration Inc. and Hugh
Bromma

All the defendants except Entrust Arizona work out of the same
address in Oakland, Calif., according to the complaint. Entrust
Arizona nka Vantage Retirement Plans is based in Phoenix.

"Defendant Bromma, a self-described SDIRA 'industry luminary,' is
an individual and believed to be a resident of San Raphael,
California.  At all times material hereto, Bromma was the CEO and
owner of both TEG and ENTRUST ADMIN," the complaint states.

Sams claims she was roped into Entrust's scam by Mike Watson, who
is not a party to the case.

Watson, of Provo, Utah, "was a self-described 'real estate
investing guru,' author, and real estate investment seminar
promoter," Sams says in the complaint.

"Watson charged attendees thousands of dollars to participate in
his seminars, [and] solicited potential investors from 2004 until
2009 across the United States," the complaint states in a
footnote.  "He used his real estate investment seminars to entice
investors into his real estate deals.  Watson told seminar
participants he would compensate them for bringing in new
investors into his 'system.'  He also told potential investors
that those who invested over $100,000 would receive a trust deed
on a piece of one of Watson's real estate ventures as security on
the investment."

In the next footnote, the complaint states: "Watson convinced
investors, including plaintiff and the other class members, to
invest in fraudulent investment schemes which he controlled,
bilking over 120 investors in 21 states of more than $27.5 million
through issuance of promissory notes.  Although Watson claimed his
investments were backed by substantial real estate holdings and
cash flow from his company properties, in fact, Watson never
generated sufficient income to cover his investors' interest
payments or the redemption of investments.  As with all Ponzi
schemes, Watson relied on new investors' funds to repay his prior
investors because his investments were never profitable."

Watson was never licensed to sell securities, and "the purported
investments that Watson sold to the plaintiff and other class
members were either failing real estate or business ventures
secured by worthless promissory notes or did not even actually
exist," Sams says in the complaint.

"To 'sell' the victims, Watson frequently touted and emphasized
Entrust's size and experience as evidence of the credibility and
stability of the investment.  The affiliation between the
defendants and Watson enticed inexperienced and unsophisticated
investors (who might otherwise be more cautious) into an
investment scam because the investors believed they were protected
by large, purportedly well-funded and experienced companies with
trustworthy names like 'Entrust.'"

Sams claims the defendants sent account statements that "reported
the same value year after year unless, of course, Watson provided
a greater value to the custodian.  The custodian would then record
the amount provided by the fraud promoter as the actual updated
value of the SDIRA.  This practice only further deceived plaintiff
and the class members into believing their investments were
increasing in value and secure."

After suckering the class members into investing, "Entrust created
the illusion that the Watson investments were providing
substantial returns and/or that the value of the SDIRAs was
stable," the complaint states.  "In fact, Watson had absconded
with the investment monies within days or weeks after the SDIRA
funds were wired to bank accounts Watson controlled and then
diverted to other accounts, never to be seen again, at least not
by the rightful owner."

Sams says she invested $199,000 after attending one of Watson's
real estate seminars and was promised that the money was secured
by promissory notes.  However, she says, "there is no real estate
or property identified as being held by Sams' Entrust SDIRA, there
are no stock certificates referenced, and the Entrust SDIRA
statements do not identify any actual asset but simply list the
name 'Mike Watson Capital.'

"From 2008 until the present, Entrust was the SDIRA custodian of
nothing and Sams had to pay for the privilege of Entrust's Service
for administering her worthless Entrust SDIRA with no assets."

The complaint adds: "While defendants may object to being grouped
together, their own documents and practices demonstrate that they
were inextricably intertwined with one another as part of a
national SDIRA custodial network.  Some examples of the
intertwined nature of their acts and omissions include:

"a. TEG and its franchisees and licensees referred to themselves
collectively as 'ENTRUST' in their marketing and advertising
documents, corporate email solicitations and newsletters to
clients and prospective clients, their websites, their webinars
and seminars, their SDIRA forms and documents, and their
correspondence to SDIRA clients, including Plaintiff and the other
Class Members; . . .

"e. TEG and ENTRUST ADMIN maintained, housed, and controlled the
information systems for all ENTRUST administrative and custodial
functions; in order to access information about their own clients,
licensees and franchisees had to access the TEG information
system, input client account information there, and access forms
and documents.  These forms and documents were necessary for the
licensees and franchisees to perform their functions as an ENTRUST
SDIRA record keeper. ENTRUST'S internal policies required that
each franchisee and licensee upload all SDIRA client information
to the ENTRUST ADMIN/TEG information system; . . ."

Sams seeks compensatory and punitive damages for conversion,
fraudulent concealment and aiding and abetting.

She is represented by Louis Leibowitz of Rockville, Md.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 19,640 Optimus Tower Quartz Heaters
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Family Dollar Services Inc., of Matthews, North Carolina,
announced a voluntary recall of about 19,640 Portable Heaters.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The heaters can overheat posing a fire hazard.

Family Dollar Stores has received 10 reports of overheating,
including some reports of temperature knobs melting.  The firm has
not received reports of injury, fire or property damage.

Optimus Tower Quartz Heaters are portable electric tower heaters
that are about 10 inches wide, 25 inches tall and 9 inches deep.
The heaters have a white metal casing with a white plastic top, a
wire cage protecting the heating elements and vent slits at the
bottom.  The front section of the top has the brand name Optimus,
a power light, a caution light and two dials.  One dial turns the
heater on or off and selects the power of either 750 watts or 1500
watts.  The other control knob selects the heat range between high
and low.  The rear section of the top has fire, high temperature
and shock warnings and diagrams of the heater being used in 750
watt mode and 1500 watt mode.  Model number "H-5232" is on a
silver sticker on the bottom of the heater below the words
"Optimus" and "Quartz Heater."  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at: http://is.gd/xjuyz9

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Family Dollar Stores from September 2012 through December 2012 for
about $35.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the heaters and
return the product to any Family Dollar Stores location for a full
refund.  Family Dollar Stores may be reached at (800) 547-0359
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.familydollar.com/,then click on Product Recalls in the
Help section at the bottom of the page.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Lexapro
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Forest Laboratories illegally
pushes its antidepressant Lexapro for minors, for whom it is not
effective, a class action claims in Federal Court.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Using Information From Gmail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google intercepts, reads and
swipes information from gmail "Google Apps for Education" and uses
it for profit, a class action claims in Federal Court.


HALLIBURTON CO: Must Face Class Action Over Defrauding Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that Halliburton must
face a class action from investors who say it defrauded them by
lying about possible asbestos liability, the 5th Circuit ruled.

The oil giant had hoped to avert class certification in the
Northern District of Texas with evidence that would purportedly
show its alleged fraud did not affect the market price of the
stock -- that is, its alleged misrepresentation did not cause
"price impact" or "price distortion."

Heeding direction from the Supreme Court, however, a federal judge
in Dallas said such evidence was immaterial to the issue of
commonality and certified the class.

A three-judge panel with the New Orleans-based appeals court
affirmed.

The investors had moved for certification in September 2007 for
all persons who purchased common stock between June 3, 1999, and
December 7, 2001.

Led by the Erica P. John Fund Inc., the investors claimed that
Halliburton had understated its projected liability for asbestos
claims, overstated revenues by including billings that were
unlikely to be collected, and exaggerated the cost savings and
efficiencies from a merger in 1998 with Dresser Industries.

After their first attempt at class certification failed, the U.S.
Supreme Court concluded in 2011 that appeals court "erred by
requiring EPJ Fund to show loss causation as a condition of
obtaining class certification."

It is a prerequisite of class certification for the plaintiffs to
show that a company's untrue statements created a presumption of
reliance.  The fraud-on-the-market presumption involves
misrepresentation publicity, misrepresentation materiality, market
efficiency, and evidence that the plaintiff traded shares between
the time the misrepresentations were made and when the truth was
revealed.

Unlike the other prerequisites, however, a failure to prove
materiality will likewise kill the individual claims of all
plaintiffs, the Supreme Court found.

"A plaintiff can fail to establish publicity, market efficiency,
or trade timing, and therefore lose the class-wide presumption of
reliance, but still establish individual reliance and prove
fraud," the Supreme Court stated.  "Thus, only those issues which
bear directly on the pivotal inquiry of common question
predominance and the propriety of class resolution should be
addressed at class certification."

On remand, the 5th Circuit said Halliburton had failed to show
that the investors could still pursue fraud claims without proving
price impact.

"Although the 10b-5 fraud action does not expressly require proof
of price impact as an element of the claim, a plaintiff must
nevertheless prevail on this fact in order to establish another
element on which the plaintiff does bear the burden of proof: loss
causation," Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote for the panel.  "Price
impact can be shown either by an increase in price following a
fraudulent public statement or a decrease in price following a
revelation of the fraud.  To successfully prove a lack of price
impact, Halliburton would thus be required to demonstrate both
that the stock price did not increase when the misrepresentation
was announced, and that the price did not decrease when the truth
was revealed.  If Halliburton were to successfully show that the
price did not drop when the truth was revealed, then no plaintiff
could establish loss causation."

If Halliburton successfully rebutted the fraud-on-the-market
presumption by proving no price impact, the individual plaintiff
claims would fail as well because they could not establish an
essential element of their fraud claim.

Therefore, price impact evidence should not be addressed at class
certification.


HAWAII: 32 Judges Foster "Flipping" of Properties, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purna Nemani at Courthouse News Services reports that a Hawaii
family and a developer filed a federal class action against every
Circuit Court judge in Hawaii, accusing them of using "ancient
judge-made procedures" to enforce foreclosure judgments.

Jerry Agbannaoag, Ke Kailani Development et al. claim the judges'
practice fostered the "flipping" of properties and unjustly
enriched lenders.  Michael J. Fuchs, the founder of Home Box
Office, is also a plaintiff.  They sued the honorable judges of
the First, Second, Third and Fifth Circuits of Hawaii - all 32
judges.

"Hawaii courts matter-of-factly merely assume routinely when
determining and enforcing foreclosure deficiency judgments that
the confirmed sale price minus the net proceeds of sale controls
and mathematically determines by subtraction the monetary
deficiency amount," the complaint states.

"This procedure completely ignores reality," the plaintiffs say.
They call it an "arbitrary and mechanical method" that fails to
protect borrowers.

The plaintiffs claim other states have passed laws against the
practice.  "Today, many state legislatures have passed anti-
deficiency statutes, requiring that after a foreclosure auction,
state courts must hold a separate, evidentiary hearing to
determine the 'fair value' of the foreclosed property, which is
not necessarily the 'auction price,'" they say in the complaint.

The Agbannaoags say they got a $710,000 loan in 2007 to build a
home on Maui.  Their lender, nonparty Finance Factors, got
signatures from the Agbannaoag's parents as co-signers, even
though they could not speak English, and extended the maturity
date of the loan three times, according to the complaint.  The
Agbannaoags say they lost the home and had to file for bankruptcy
after a state court-appointed "Foreclosure Commissioner" auctioned
the property back to Finance Factors for $618,600, though it was
appraised at over $1.2 million. (60)

Michael J. Fuchs and his development company, Ke Kailani
Development say they were similarly duped.  Fuchs claims that in
2005 and 2006 he borrowed more than $70 million to develop a 65-
acre, luxury subdivision on the South Kohala coast of the Big
Island.  By 2009, Fuchs says, due to the "worldwide recession" and
loan modifications, it was impossible to repay the loans on the
unsold lots, which had lost value.  That set off a bitter fight
between Fuch's company and its borrowers.

First Circuit Judge Bert I. Ayabe dismissed Fuchs's complaints and
entered deficiency judgments against him in 2012, for "a pitiful
$16,601," without allowing Fuchs to do any discovery, he says in
the complaint.

Fuchs claims that Judge Ayabe's wife did legal work for three of
Fuchs's adversaries in the foreclosure case.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment for violations of due
process -- but not monetary damages.  They are represented by Gary
Victor Dubin.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Suit Over Paying Exempt-Status Salary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that certain
Kaiser Foundation Hospital Inc. employees were paid an exempt-
status salary, but performed non-exempt tasks, according to a San
Diego Superior Court class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Adam Hardesty was employed at a San Diego County
Kaiser hospital as a "project manager" from August 2012 to
February 2013.  Hardesty states in his complaint that despite the
title, employees had little to no authority, never served in a
supervisory role and were otherwise "engaged in a type of work
that required no exercise of independent judgment or discretion as
to any matter of significance."

Instead, Kaiser project managers performed a "finite" set of non-
exempt tasks that included transcribing written and electronic
prescriptions, completing patient profile entries and notes,
sending requests to doctors for medication refills and were even
expected to troubleshoot the pharmacy computer system, all on top
of "daily debriefing" conference calls.

"As a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, Kaiser
unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively classified every project
manager as exempt based on job title alone, failed to pay the
required overtime compensation and otherwise failed to comply with
all labor laws with respect to these project managers," the
complaint states.

Hardesty alleges Kaiser operates the scheme to save money and be
more competitive in the health care industry.

"To successfully compete against the other health care service
providers, Kaiser substantially reduced its labor costs by placing
the burden of overtime work on a smaller number of salaried
employees that Kaiser classified as exempt from overtime wages and
other related benefits . . . the requirement to pay overtime wages
extends beyond the benefits individual workers receive because
overtime wages discourage employers from concentrating work in a
few overburdened hands and encourages employers to instead hire
additional employees," the complaint states.

In addition, the complaint alleges Kaiser did not provide the
class compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and did not
provide accurate and itemized wage statements showing gross and
net wages, hourly rates for regular and overtime hours or the
corresponding hours worked at each hourly rate.

Hardesty is suing for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Laws under California's Business and Professions code.
He wants the court to enjoin Kaiser from continuing its practice
of labeling employees as exempt by title only, to order Kaiser to
correctly calculate and pay all wages due, and to disgorge "ill-
gotten gains into a fluid fund for restitution" according to
proof.

Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug and Aparajit Bhowmik, of
La Jolla, Calif., represent the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          Norman B. Blumenthal
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug
          Aparajit Bhowmik
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          Email: Norm@bamlawlj.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Allowed Traders to Lose Billions, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that lax executives and directors
of JPMorgan Chase allowed proprietary traders in derivatives to
lose billions of dollars, shareholders claim in a class action in
New York County Supreme Court.


L'OREAL: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertising 24H Makeup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, an
Orthodox Jew accuses L'Oreal and Lancome of falsely advertising
their "24-hour makeup;" she can't apply makeup on the Sabbath and
it would look lousy for her son's Bar Mitzvah, she says in the
complaint.

Lead plaintiff Rorie Weisberg sued the two companies, saying their
"precise corporate structure . . . is unclear."  They claim that
their Teint Idole Ultra 24H foundation makeup lasts for 24 hours,
Weisberg says, but it ain't so.  Because she cannot apply makeup
from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday, Weisberg says, she
spent $45 for a 1-oz. bottle of the makeup.

"Specifically, plaintiff's eldest son is having his Bar Mitzva
celebration in June and plaintiff was looking for a long-lasting
foundation that would achieve the foregoing dual objectives over
the Bar Mitzva Sabbath."

The dual objectives refer to defendants' claims -- actually, three
of them -- that the stuff would be "retouch free," "perfectly
flawless," and provide "24 hour lasting perfection and comfort."

Not willing to leave it to chance, Weisberg says, she "decided to
test it from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday to see if she
liked it and if the product worked.  Plaintiff did so because she
did not want to be stuck wearing the product over the weekend if
it did not work."

Alas! From the moment it went on at 5 p.m. Thursday, "Plaintiff
felt that the product made her skin look very cakey.  By Friday
morning, plaintiff's skin was shiny, particularly around her nose.
Moreover, the product that had been applied had faded
significantly, making plaintiff's face look uneven.  It looked
like very little of the product was remaining on plaintiff's face,
which was confirmed when she removed the remainder of the product
at 3 p.m. with a white cotton ball, where very little of the
product was found on the pad.  Based on her experience, plaintiff
did not receive the benefit of longwearing efficacy as claimed by
Lancome in its advertising and on the product packaging."

Weisberg seeks class damages for breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, and business law violations. She is represented
by Jeffrey Feinberg.

The Jewish Daily Forward, which broke the story in a feature
article, interviewed a biochemist who started her own cosmetics
company for people who can't apply makeup on the Sabbath.

Shaindy Kelman "scoffed at Weisberg's lawsuit," the Daily Forward
reported.

"'I hope a judge will look at it and throw it in the garbage,'"
she told the Forward." 'I can't believe she even has the chutzpah'
to file it.  'There's no way you can guarantee things on
everyone's skin.  All we can do is let you try the product.
Everybody's skin is different, and who knows if she put it on
right?'"


MARISSA TEVES: Faces Class Action Over RICO Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a recidivist
labor recruiter who bilked immigrants of millions of dollars
flouted a court order, with help from her wealthy husband, by
holding a Filipino in "indentured servitude," the man claims in
court.

Lester Lee Javier, a physical therapy aide, sued Marissa Teves
Beck, her husband Henry Beck and six of their companies in Federal
Court.  Javier accuses them of RICO violations, human trafficking,
labor law violations and other charges.

"Marissa Teves Beck is a recruiter with an ugly track record of
illegally abusing and mistreating non-immigrant workers," the
complaint states.  "In 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a
determination letter finding that she and a company she controlled
had cheated employees out of almost $3 million in wages.  The
Department of Labor also determined that Mrs. Beck had threatened
employees with lawsuits and loss of their legal status -- and
actually commenced lawsuits against them -- when they complained
of her illegal conduct.

"In 2009, this court entered a permanent injunction against Mrs.
Beck prohibiting her and her company from future violations of the
FLSA's overtime and recordkeeping provisions.  She was also
ordered to advise employees of their rights under the FLSA, in
particular their right to engage in protected activity without
fear of retaliation."

"Non-immigrant worker" does not mean that a worker is not an
immigrant; it means he or she does not seek to immigrate
permanently to the United States.

The Department of Labor announced in April 2009 that Beck had
agreed to pay 247 current and former employees $211,120 in back
wages and interest to resolve the lawsuit.  But Javier says in his
complaint: "Despite having been caught by the government in 2008
and enjoined by this Court in 2009, Mrs. Beck has continued her
illegal activity and willfully violated this court's permanent
injunction.  She has done this by hiding behind the perceived
legitimacy of her husband, Henry R. Beck -- a Vice President with
The Corcoran Group -- and by using a web of corporate entities
purportedly run by her husband, but actually managed and
controlled by Mrs. Beck herself."

Those entities are defendants Oasis Professional Management Group
Inc., Advanced Professional Marketing Inc., Grill 211 LLC, Pan De
Sal LLC and Gramercy Group Four LLC, according to the complaint.

Javier claims he is "one of the victims of the Becks' illegal and
abusive treatment of non-immigrant workers."

Called for comment at Advanced Professional Marketing, Marissa
Beck bristled at the allegations.

"This is totally wrong," she told Courthouse News.  "I am not that
kind of person."

Beck told Courthouse News she had not yet been served with the
complaint.  She said she had treated Javier well -- giving him a
place to stay when he met her, and all of his vacation and sick
days when he left.

In his complaint, Javier claims the Becks paid him less than half
the prevailing wage, refused to pay him overtime, illegally
charged him thousands of dollars in fees for an H-1B visa
application and kept him from asserting his rights by threatening
to withdraw that application.

Though he is not filing as a class action, Javier claims that his
"mistreatment . . . is not an isolated incident, but part of a
much larger and continuous illegal enterprise."

"For years, the Becks have engaged in an illegal scheme involving
immigration fraud, perjury, extortion, willful violations of this
court's permanent injunction, mail fraud, wire fraud, and
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) affecting hundreds of
non-immigrant employees," the complaint states.

The Becks and their companies have filed "more than 750
applications for H-1B visas since 2001, and many of those
applications have been based on the Becks' willfully false and
fraudulent submissions to the government," Javier says in the
complaint.

"Treating employees like their personal property, the Becks use
employees at different companies depending on their personal
wishes and needs.  For example, when the Becks did not have enough
work for plaintiff as a Physical Therapy Rehab Manager or Physical
Therapy Aide, they refused to pay him.  To earn a living, he had
no choice but to work as a dishwasher, delivery boy, and cook at
one the Becks' restaurants, defendant Grill 21, for only $9 per
hour.  Plaintiff also worked as a Physical Therapy Aide for
defendant Advanced Professional Marketing, Inc., also for only $9
per hour," according to the complaint.

Indignant at that charge, Marissa Beck told Courthouse News that
Javier did not pass his physical therapy exam, did not have a
license, and "begged me to be a dishwasher in my restaurant!"

Javier's complaint continues: "Disregarding corporate forms and
formalities, the Becks dominate the corporate defendants to cheat
non-immigrant workers out of their wages, overtime payments, and
contractual rights to legitimate immigration assistance.  The
Becks' continuous fraudulent and illegal conduct includes creating
and maintaining false hours and wages records, making false
representations under oath to the federal government, demanding
and concealing illegal payments from non-immigrant workers, and
employing non-immigrant workers in positions inconsistent with
their immigration status and at wages below the prevailing wages
for their job positions."

Beck said in the interview: "I've had enough of this labor thing!
If I don't give him work, I'm benching him.  If I place him and he
doesn't work, I have to pull him out.  . . . I gave him five
warnings to pull him out.  I have the emails to prove it.  I have
the right to pull him out."

She added: "He will not win.  He will never win.  He's a lazy
person, and he took advantage of me. "

Javier seeks treble damages on eight claims, including those
mentions above, and breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum
meruit and fraud.

He is represented by John Howley.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Reese" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
December affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit titled
Reese v. Bahash, against the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 28, 2007, a putative shareholder class action titled
Reese v. Bahash was filed in the District Court for the District
of Columbia, and was subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York. The Company and its CEO and former CFO were
named as defendants in the suit, which alleged claims under the
federal securities laws in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions made by the defendants relating
to the Company's earnings and S&P's business practices. On
November 3, 2008, the District Court denied Lead Plaintiff's
motion to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act in order to obtain documents S&P
submitted to the SEC during the SEC's examination. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint which was
fully briefed and submitted as of May 2009. The Court granted a
motion by plaintiffs permitting the plaintiffs to amend the
complaint on June 29, 2010 and the Third Amended Complaint was
filed on July 1, 2010. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint was fully briefed. On April 2, 2012, the
District Court entered judgment granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and dismissing all claims asserted against the Defendants
in their entirety. The Lead Plaintiff appealed the dismissal
order. On December 20, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in its entirety.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Dismissal of "Gearren" & "Sullivan" Suits Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 2008, a putative shareholder class action titled
Patrick Gearren, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.
was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Board of Directors, its Pension
Investment Committee and the administrator of its pension plans.
The Complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to participants in the Company's ERISA plans by allowing
participants to continue to invest in Company stock as an
investment option under the plans during a period when plaintiffs
allege the Company's stock price to have been artificially
inflated. The Complaint also asserted that defendants breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA by making certain material
misrepresentations and non-disclosures concerning the ratings
business in plan communications and the Company's SEC filings. A
virtually identical complaint was filed on June 12, 2009 in an
action titled Sullivan v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 09-CV-5450 in the Southern District of New York.

On February 10, 2010 both actions were dismissed in their entirety
for failure to state a claim under applicable law. Both plaintiffs
appealed and on October 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals in their entirety. On
February 23, 2012, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration by the full Court. Plaintiffs filed a
petition with the United States Supreme Court asking it to review
the decision. The Supreme Court has denied plaintiffs' request and
the dismissals are now final, according to The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


MICHIGAN: Grand Rapids Police Sued for Routinely Arresting People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Grand Rapids police routinely
arrest people and charge them with criminal trespass at
businesses, though no one told them they were unwelcome or asked
them to leave, a class action claims in Federal Court.


MICROSOFT CORP: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Microsoft of retaining and selling personal information
about X-Box Live subscribers for more than a year after they
cancel, without their consent.


NEW YORK: Police Sued Over "Manufactured Misdemeanors"
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
City police racially profile blacks and Latinos to "manufacture"
marijuana offenses against them, five Bronx residents claim in
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Maurosol Felix sued New York City, NYPD
Commissioner Ray Kelly, two deputy inspectors, a captain, nine
officers and 14 Officer Does, claiming the NYPD trumped up minor
marijuana violations as misdemeanors, charging them with crimes
the "men did not commit and which, shockingly, the charging police
officers knew they did not commit."

The lawsuit comes after a widely publicized trial on the NYPD's
"stop and frisk" policy, which allegedly targets black people.

The plaintiffs in this case, as in the stop and frisk case, claim
that the NYPD holds officers to an illegal quota system for such
arrests.

Under New York law, a person who carries less than 25 grams of
marijuana cannot serve jail time on a first offense and faces a
maximum fine of $100 for a violation.

But the plaintiffs claim that police "manufactured misdemeanors"
against them by writing up the violations under a statute that
punishes possession of marijuana that is "burning or open to
public view," which can lead to pre-arraignment and post-trial
incarceration and inclusion in a criminal database.

Felix, 42, claims he used the drug medicinally to relieve "a host
of illnesses."  As he walked out of a convenience store, defendant
Officer Cintron spotted something suspicious in his hand, which
was just food, Felix says in the complaint.  Cintron's partner,
defendant Officer Edwin Jerez, got out of the car and snuck up
from behind him, Felix says.

"Without provocation or justification, defendant Jerez used his
body to forcefully and painfully pin Mr. Felix down on the NYPD
vehicle," the complaint states.  During a "warrantless, illegal
and unjustified search," Cintron found a small amount of marijuana
in the inside of his coat pocket, Felix says.

Defendant Officers Guagliardi and Concepcion arrived and put him
into a van, according to the complaint.  Felix claims that
Guagliardi turned to him during the ride to the 46th Precinct and
said, "Don't take this personally.  I have a quota to make."  He
claims that several Bronx police officers testified about pressure
to meet stop-and-frisk arrest quotas in the Floyd v. City of New
York class action.

NYPD data submitted as evidence in that case showed that 87
percent of street stops targeted blacks and Latinos.

The Felix plaintiffs claim statistics for marijuana possession
"burning or open to public view" arrests are even more racially
lopsided.

"From 2003 through 2011, 87.0 percent of people arrested and
charged under Sec. 221.10 for possessing marijuana 'burning or
open to public view' in New York City were either black or
Latino," the complaint states.  "Conversely, only 10.2 percent
were white.  The disparity is even more acute in the Bronx, where
the DCJS records show that 95.4 percent of all persons arrested
and charged under Sec. 221.10 were either black or Latino.
Meanwhile, studies show that between 2002 and 2009, among persons
between the ages of 18 and 25, a greater percentage of whites used
marijuana than either blacks or Latinos."

As in the Floyd case, all of the plaintiffs are black and Latino
men who claim police racially profiled them because of pressure to
meet quotas.

"As a result of this quota system, and the perverse incentives it
imposes, some NYPD officers have developed a policy, practice and
custom of lying on criminal complaints -- including plaintiffs' --
so as to 'justify' charging a misdemeanor rather than a
violation," the complaint states.

Plaintiff Angel Sanchez claims his marijuana was so far away from
public view that police had to strip him nearly naked to find it.

Sanchez claims he was walking home with a friend when defendant
Officer Brian Flynn and two unidentified colleagues approached
them.

The officers told his friend to "keep walking," then Flynn slammed
Sanchez against a gate, according to the complaint.

Sanchez says that Flynn kept asking, "Where is it?"

Finding nothing, they handcuffed him anyway, drove him down the
road and started a strip search, according to the complaint.

"Defendant Flynn kicked Mr. Sanchez's legs apart, opened Mr.
Sanchez's pants, and pulled his underwear below his genitals.

"Passersby on the street were able to see Mr. Sanchez's genitals,
causing him extreme embarrassment.

"While Mr. Sanchez was standing in the street with his genitals
exposed, defendant Flynn touched Mr. Sanchez's testicles for an
extended period of time.

"In the midst of defendant Flynn's invasive and illegal search, a
bag containing a small amount of marijuana fell from the bottom of
Mr. Sanchez's pants onto the street," the complaint states.

Flynn wrote that he saw Sanchez stuff a Ziploc bag with marijuana
"into his waistband with his left hand in public view," the
complaint states.

Charges against all of the plaintiffs were dismissed after lengthy
delays, according to the complaint.  (The New York Times this week
has run a lengthy series on multi-year delays of trials even for
trivial offenses in Bronx courts.)

The five plaintiffs demand punitive damages for constitutional
violations and negligence.  They are represented by Sam Shapiro
and Katherine Rosenfeld with Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady.

Their co-counsel, Scott Levy of the Bronx Defenders, wrote in a
statement: "By lying and needlessly placing people in the criminal
justice system, the NYPD is losing the trust of Bronx residents.
They feel like the NYPD is out to get them, not to protect them.
Ultimately, this makes the community feel less safe."

A New York City Law Department spokesperson played down the claims
in an email.

"We have not been served yet, but it's important to keep in mind
that these are merely allegations at this point -- and nothing
more," the spokesperson said.


NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits by Steel Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation has been named, along with other major steel
producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed
in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints
being filed in July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints
have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The
plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31,
2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Although
the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot at this
time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range
of Nucor's potential exposure, according to its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012.


NY METHODIST HOSPITAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New York Methodist Hospital
stiffs assistant nurse managers for overtime, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


PACKAGING CORP: Consolidated Price-Fixing Suit Still in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
During September and October 2010, Packaging Corporation of
America and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers
were named as defendants in five purported class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act. The
lawsuits have been consolidated in a single complaint under the
caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al. The
consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to
limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period from August
2005 to the time of filing of the complaint. The complaint was
filed as a purported class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of containerboard products during such period. The complaint seeks
treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees. The
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were denied by the
court in April 2011.

PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend
this lawsuit vigorously. However, as the lawsuit is in the
document production phase of discovery, PCA is unable to predict
the ultimate outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, according to its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012.


PENGUIN GROUP: Faces Class Action for Cheating Writers
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Penguin
Group's self-publishing branch, Author Solutions, cheats writers
of royalties and charges them to correct typos in manuscripts that
the company itself inserted, three unhappy authors claim in a
federal class action.

Kelvin James, Jodi Foster and Terry Hardy sued Penguin Group (USA)
and Author Solutions, a Penguin company.

Author Solutions claims to have worked with 160,000 writers and
created 200,000 books, according to the complaint.

(Plaintiff Jodi Foster has no relation to movie star Jodie
Foster.)

Pearson PLC, a nonparty media and education company that owns
Penguin, acquired Author Solutions on July 19, 2012.

"Author Solutions' revenues are estimated at $100 million per
year," the complaint states.  "Of the $100 million Author
Solutions earns as revenue, approximately one third of that
amount, or millions annually, comes from book sales.  The rest of
its revenue is derived from the services it offers, such as
editorial services, formatting and design services, production
services, and marketing services ('services').

"Despite its impressive profits from book sales, Author Solutions
fails at the most basic task of a publisher: paying its authors
their earned royalties and providing its authors with accurate
sales statements.

"Author Solutions also fails to take diligent care of its authors'
works, making numerous and egregious publisher errors - errors
made by the publisher, not the author.  These errors include
errors on book covers, in addition to various typographical and
formatting errors.  In fact, Author Solutions profits from its own
mistakes.  Aggressive sales techniques ensure that these errors
are corrected only for a fee of several hundred dollars.  Even
though, as a matter of policy, Author Solutions promises to
correct publisher errors for free, it rarely does.

"Most of Author Solutions' earnings are derived from its
publishing and marketing services.  These services, which can cost
authors tens of thousands of dollars, likewise fail to deliver
what they promise: more book sales and more opportunities for
authors.

"Therefore, even while Defendant Author Solutions prominently
markets itself on its website as '[t]he leading indie publishing
company in the world,' authors often discover, once it is too
late, that Author Solutions it is not an 'indie publisher' at all.
It is a printing service that fails to maintain even the most
rudimentary standards of book publishing, profiting not for its
authors but from them."

The writers say Authors Solutions also operates under the names
AuthorHouse, iUniverse, Palibrio, Trafford, and Xlibris, to give
customers a deceptive impression of variety.

"Many authors, in an effort to avoid republishing a second book
with the same imprint, move onto another without realizing that it
is simply the same Author Solutions operation under a different
name," the complaint states.

The class includes New York and California residents who bought a
package or services from Author Solutions, in the past three to
four years, respectively.

The writers want $5 million in punitive damages for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, California unfair competition law,
and New York general business law.

They are represented by Oren Giskan.


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Calls for Guidance on Medical Monitoring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santi Suthinithet at Courthouse News Service reports that the 2nd
Circuit called for guidance as to whether longtime Marlboro
smokers can force Philip Morris to cover medical-monitoring costs
they face.

Affirming a judge's decision to grant the tobacconist summary
judgment, the federal appeals court said that Marcia Caronia,
Linda McAuley and Arlene Feldman could not sustain claims for
negligence, strict liability and breach-of-warranty claims.

The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, should
determine whether the trio has a "free-standing equitable claim
for medical monitoring," according to the ruling.

Caronia, McAuley and Feldman had sued Philip Morris in January
2006, initially seeking to pursue it as a class action.  They are
all over 50 years old and either still smoke Marlboros or quit in
the year before filing suit.  Each smoked Marlboros for at least
20 "pack-years," a term that is calculated by multiplying the
number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day with the number of
years.  A 20 pack-year smoker, for example, likely smoked two
packs a day for 10 years.

Although none of the plaintiffs have been diagnosed with lung
cancer or are being investigated for suspected lung cancer, their
fourth amended complaint asserted that they "are at significantly
increased risk for developing lung cancer as a consequence of
their use of Marlboro cigarettes . . . specifically as a
consequence of the excess quantities of carcinogens delivered by
Marlboro cigarettes."

They said Philip Morris knew all along that it was possible to
lower the amount of carcinogens in its cigarettes, but that it
"purposely designed all of its Marlboro cigarettes to deliver an
excessive amount of carcinogens when smoked by humans."

Instead of compensatory or punitive damages for their claims, the
trio wanted Philip Morris to fund a medical-monitoring program for
individuals who are risk of lung cancer from smoking the company's
cigarettes.

They noted that lung cancer is often curable when found at an
early stage.  They also alleged that a recently developed medical
screening procedure known as Low Dose CT Scanning of the chest
(LDCT), has become available, though it is not a benefit in many,
if any, insurance plans.

It is "a modest annual expense [of] less than five hundred ($500)
dollars per patient per year," according to their third amended
complaint, and involves "a lower dose of radiation than is
associated with an annual mammogram."

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit said it is unsure after
looking at state-law precedent whether a plaintiff may maintain an
independent cause of action for medical monitoring.

In the Massachusetts case, Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, for
example, a court allowed a group of 20 pack-year smokers to sue
for LDCT medical monitoring, rejecting claims that "medical
monitoring could not be ordered without a showing by the
plaintiffs of 'physical harm manifested by objective
symptomology.'"

That court also noted how the roots of tort law lie in the 19th
and 20th century, when such lawsuits mostly involved cases of
"blunt trauma and mechanical forces."

It said tort law had to "adapt to the growing recognition that
exposure to toxic substances and radiation may cause substantial
injury which should be compensable even if the full effects are
not immediately apparent."

Looking at cases across the United States, "most of the courts
that have concluded that a plaintiff who has not suffered physical
injury from tortious exposure to hazardous substances may maintain
a cause of action for medical monitoring have elaborated on the
elements necessary to prevail on such a claim," Judge Amalya
Kearse wrote for a three-member panel.  "The lists of elements are
similar, but not identical."

Though the 2nd Circuit can surmise the state-law intent where "the
governing principles are uncertain or ambiguous," Kearse said no
New York court has directly addressed the medical-monitoring
question under New York State law.

The task now falls to the Court of Appeals to decide whether state
law allows an independent cause for medical action, and when the
statute of limitations begins -- at the time of exposure or when
new screening becomes available.

"We do not intend this articulation of the above specified
questions to limit the scope of the analysis by the Court of
Appeals, and we invite the Court of Appeals to expand upon or
alter these questions as it deems appropriate," Kearse added.

The answer, the 2nd Circuit court stated, "reflects value
judgments and important public policy choices that the New York
Court of Appeals is better situated than we are to make."


POWER-ONE: Being Sold to ABB for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Power-One is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to ABB Ltd., for $1 billion,
or $6.35 a share, shareholders claim in Superior Court


PROLOR BIOTECH: Being Sold to Opko for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Prolor Biotech is selling
itself too cheaply to Opko Health, in a 1-for-.995 share stock
swap valued at $480 million, shareholders claim in Clark County
Court.


PROVIDE COMMERCE: Judge Approves Settlement on 2 Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that online
marketers can settle claims that their "free shipping" offer was a
ruse to enroll customers automatically in a paid membership
program, a federal judge ruled.

The class -- made up of named plaintiffs Daniel Cox, Joseph Lynch
and Nicole Hall -- claimed that they encountered a pop-up ad
offering free shipping on their purchases while shopping on
ProFlowers.com, a website operated by Provide Commerce Inc.  When
the customers clicked on the pop-up, they were allegedly directed
to another website operated by Clarus Marketing Group.

Directed to that site, the class said Clarus offered free shipping
on the present transaction, plus free-shipping rebates on 12
future ProFlowers.com purchases.  To accept the offer, they
allegedly entered only their email addresses and zip codes-but no
payment information.

Neither Clarus nor Provide Commerce warned customers that
accepting the "free shipping" offer authorized Clarus to enroll
them in its FreeShipping.com membership programs, according to the
complaint.  Those programs cost the plaintiffs between $9 and $20
monthly, paid through payment information apparently shared by
Provide Commerce.

The lead plaintiffs filed two class actions in 2011, accusing
Provide Commerce and Clarus of violating federal anti-racketeering
law, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and a number of violations
of state consumer-protection and business laws, as well claims for
negligence and invasion of privacy.

After consolidating the two actions, the parties met with a
mediator in May 2012 and reached a proposed settlement last
October.

U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Huff both certified the class
and approved the settlement, noting that only 62 of the more than
1 million class members had chosen to opt out of the settlement.
Provide Commerce agreed to offer class members either 20 percent
off a future purchase or a combination of a $15 credit and a
portion of the $500,000 settlement fund.

Huff also approved attorneys' fees and costs of $640,000, and
handed each of the lead plaintiffs a $5,000 incentive award.

Any remaining money in the settlement fund will be given to
California Western School of Law and used to promote internet
security and data privacy, Huff said.


SAFETY-KLEEN: Contract Breach Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Otay Hydraulics, Inc., filed a putative class action against
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., in California state court on June 25,
2012.  Otay Hydraulics alleged that Safety-Kleen breached
contracts with Safety-Kleen's California customers by allegedly
charging unauthorized fuel surcharges and excessive late-payment
fees.  The Defendants removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and the
Court remanded the action on its own motion for lack of
jurisdiction.  But on appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the order.

On April 15, 2013, Otay Hydraulics moved to remand the case,
arguing that Safety-Kleen failed to establish that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2) -- an issue the Ninth Circuit declined to address on
appeal.

After carefully considering the Notice of Removal and supporting
declarations, District Judge Otis D. Wright II agreed with Otay
Hydraulics and remanded the case to Los Angeles County Superior
Court.

The Court held that Safety-Kleen has not proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000
as mandated by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).

The case is OTAY HYDRAULICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SAFETY-KLEEN
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-07357-ODW(VBKx), (C.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's May 6, 2013 order is available at
http://is.gd/4NhTKBfrom Leagle.com.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: 5th Cir. Affirmed Judgment in "Robin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D. La.)
(the "Robin Case"), in which they asserted that support vessels,
including vessels owned by SEACOR Holdings Inc., responding to the
explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-
submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in
their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed
to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.
The action was part of the overall multi-district litigation, In
re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179
("MDL"). The complaint sought compensatory, punitive, exemplary,
and other damages.

In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking
exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any
actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company
to extinguish the fire. On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to
dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a
Company employee) on various legal grounds. On October 12, 2011,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety,
dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against
the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the
motion to dismiss). The Court entered final judgments in favor of
the Company in the Robin Case and each of the limitation actions
on November 21, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed
each of those judgments to the Unites States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. The claimants' opening brief was submitted on
May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1,
2012. Oral argument was not requested by the Fifth Circuit.

On December 13, 2012, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of
the district court, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wunstell" Suit in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class
action lawsuit captioned John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v.
BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K), according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the
Company prior to the ORM Transaction. The action now is part of
the overall MDL. The complaint also seeks to establish a "class-
wide court-supervised medical monitoring program" for all
individuals "participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of
Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program" who allegedly
experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company
believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to vigorously
defend the action. Pursuant to contractual agreements with the
responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to
certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in
connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the
MDL.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s subsidiaries are awaiting court rulings on
their motions for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative
immunity and implied preemption arguments in one of the master
complaints over clean-up activities generally, and the use of
dispersants specifically, filed in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 15, 2010, O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM")
and National Response Corporation ("NRC"), subsidiaries of the
Company prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction,
respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several
consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the
overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts
various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple
defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the
use of dispersants specifically.

By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of
the filing of the referenced master complaint.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC
in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011,
ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master
complaint on legal grounds.

On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended
decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several
grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original
order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced
master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did
recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied
preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM
and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to
support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments.

The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain
other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master
complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have
failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury.

A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was
established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule,
ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18,
2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still
pending decision.  In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM,
pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection
with these claims in the MDL.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Expects Suit Settlements to Reduce Unit Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. expects the Economic and Property Damages
Class Action Settlement and the Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement to reduce potential exposure of its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

On March 2, 2012, BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America
Production Company (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had
reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action
settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs'
economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The
parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18,
2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the
settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to
consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements
on May 2, 2012. A final fairness hearing took place on November 8,
2012. The Court granted final approval to the Economic and
Property Damages Class Action Settlement on
December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement on January 11, 2013.

Notices of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit with respect to both class
action settlements have been filed by various objectors. Although
neither the Company, O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"),
or National Response Corporation ("NRC") are parties to the
settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as
released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement
agreements. As the releases for both settlements have been deemed
valid and enforceable by the district court, if the Fifth Circuit
affirms these decisions, class members who did not file timely
requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss,
property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other
released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. At this time,
the Company expects these settlements to reduce ORM's potential
exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions, but is
currently still evaluating the settlements' impacts on these
cases.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Deepwater Horizon FLSA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings Inc. continues to defend
collective action lawsuits alleging failure to pay overtime,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") is defending against
four collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay
overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the
Deepwater Horizon spill response (the "DPH FLSA Actions") under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). These cases -- Dennis
Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.:
2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action"); Baylor Singleton et. al. v.
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.:
2:12-cv-01716) (the "Singleton Action"); Himmerite et al. v.
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.:
2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action"); and Chann Chavis v.
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (S.D. Tx., Case No.:
4:12-cv-02045) (the "Chavis Action") -- were each brought on
behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill response and who were classified as independent
contractors. The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were
each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the
overall MDL. The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since been
automatically stayed pending further scheduling by the Court,
pursuant to the procedures in the MDL. In the Prejean Action, ORM
has answered the complaint, a scheduling order has been issued,
and plaintiffs have, among other things, filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification, which has been stayed pending further
scheduling by the Court in accordance with the procedures of the
MDL. The limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to
the Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton actions have all been tolled
pending further action by the Court. ORM has filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's order tolling the limitations
periods in these actions. The Chavis Action was filed on July 7,
2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, and ORM answered the complaint in that matter. On
December 20, 2012, the parties in the Chavis Action entered into a
full and final settlement agreement with respect to all of the
Plaintiff's individual and class claims, pending approval of the
Court.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any,
resulting from any of these DPH FLSA Actions, but believes they
are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against
them.


SOTHEBY'S INC: Appeal From "Graham" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act
of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to
Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the
motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012.

On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action
on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this
ruling. Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to
the appeal. It is currently not possible to make an estimate of
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome of this matter, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


SPECTRUM PHARMA: Allos Unit Settled Merger Class Suits in Feb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s subsidiary settled in February
AMAG merger transaction class action lawsuits and Allos
transaction class action lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 19, 2011, Allos Therapeutics, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, or AMAG Merger
Agreement, with AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or AMAG, and Alamo
Acquisition Sub, Inc., as amended on August 8, 2011. On
October 21, 2011, the AMAG Merger Agreement was terminated. In
July 2011, two lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery relating to the proposed merger between Allos and AMAG,
which two cases were later consolidated as In Re Allos
Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
6714-VCN. Following announcement of the proposed merger between
Allos and Spectrum, the consolidated case became one of the Allos
Transaction Class Action Lawsuits and part of the settlement
memorialized in the memorandum of understanding dated May 7, 2012.
On February 11, 2013, as part of the consolidated settlement of
the cases, the AMAG litigation was settled and dismissed.

On April 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Radmore, et al. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-
00948-PAB, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, or the Radmore Complaint. The Radmore
Complaint named as defendants Allos Therapeutics, the members of
the Allos board of directors, as well as Spectrum. The plaintiffs
alleged that Allos directors breached their fiduciary duties to
their stockholders in connection with the proposed merger between
Allos and Spectrum, and were aided and abetted by Allos and
Spectrum. The Radmore Complaint alleged that the merger involves
an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal
protection devices, and that the defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally. The Radmore
Complaint sought injunctive relief, including to enjoin the
merger, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief. On
April 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Keucher
v. Berns, et al., C.A. No. 7419, was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, alleging similar violations. On April 20, 2012, an
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in the matter captioned Keucher v. Berns, et al., C.A.
No. 7419-VCN, adding allegations that the Solicitation/
Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, or the Schedule
14D-9, filed by us with the SEC on April 13, 2012, contains
inadequate, incomplete and/or misleading disclosures.

On May 7, 2012, the parties to all three actions executed a
memorandum of understanding, or MOU, containing the terms for an
agreement-in-principle to resolve all litigation. The MOU provided
that the defendants would agree to make certain supplemental
disclosures in an amended Schedule 14D-9 and that the parties
would use their best efforts to agree upon, enter, and present to
the Delaware Chancery court a formal stipulation of settlement.
The MOU provides for an award to plaintiffs' counsel of $850,000
for their fees and expenses but did not include any payment to
stockholders. The parties completed confirmatory discovery on July
18, 2012 and filed a stipulation and agreement of compromise and
settlement in the Delaware court on November 8, 2012. On February
11, 2013, the Delaware court approved the settlement, including
the payment of $850,000 to counsel for the stockholders, entered
final judgment and dismissed the cases.


TELULAR CORP: Being Sold to Avista for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that insiders are selling Telular
too cheaply through an unfair process to Avista, for $12.61 a
share or $253 million, shareholders claim in Cook County Chancery
Court.


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Charging "YQ"
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that United Airlines charges a
fraudulent "tax" it calls "YQ" on its electronic tickets, but
pockets the money itself, a class action claims in British
Columbia Supreme Court.


UNITED BANKSHARES: Accrued $3.3MM in Settlement of Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2012, United Bankshares, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary, United Bank, Inc. of West Virginia, agreed to settle
two class actions. The class actions alleged that United Bank
improperly posted, processed, and paid consumer checking account
debit card transactions, which allegedly resulted in the
assessment of improper overdraft fees. These cases are virtually
identical to cases filed against more than 70 other United States
banks over the last three years.

The first case has been consolidated, with similar cases against a
myriad of other banks, into a federal multidistrict litigation
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida that is known as In re Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK. The second case
is pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, West Virginia.
Without admitting liability or any wrongdoing and to avoid further
litigation expense, United Bankshares, Inc. and United Bank, Inc.
of West Virginia agreed to settle these cases in exchange for a
payment of $3.3 million and an agreement to pay certain
settlement-related expenses. The settlement is subject to court
approval.

As of December 31, 2012, the $3.3 million settlement amount was
fully accrued by the Company, according to United Bankshares,
Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


VOLVO AG: Faces Action Over Misrepresenting Side-Impact System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Volvo misrepresents the side-
impact system in its Volvo 850, and a baby died in a crash because
of it, the parents claim in a federal class action.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misbranding Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Services reports that the defendants misbrand
their Silk line of plant-based beverages and Horizon line of dairy
products as containing "evaporated cane juice," which is really
just sugar or and dried cane syrup, a class claims.


YANKEE CANDLE: Faces Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Yankee Candle stiffs workers
for overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *