CAR_Public/130514.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 94

                             Headlines



ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of "Schmidt" Class Suit
AGRICO CHEMICAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Awaits OK of Product Liability Suit Deal
CALIFORNIA: Inmates File Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
CHICO'S FAS: Bid to Certify "Schlim" Suit Class Denied in March

CITY HOLDING: Expected "Casto" Suit to Be Closed by Q1 2013
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Fuel MDL Settlement Remains Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Trial in "Ellis" Suit Set for January 2014
CREIG NORTHROP: Faces $11-Mil. Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks
DIGITAL GENERATION: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action

FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
FEDEX CORP: Defends Unit From Suits Over Owner-Operator Issues
FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Proposed Hotspurs Merger
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Defends Securities Class Suit in Texas
JOLLY GOOD: Recalls 1,471 Pounds of Pork Meat Pie Products

KRINOS FOODS: Recalls Additional Tahini Sesame Paste Products
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Defends "Chaikin" Class Suit in California
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Defends "Geare" Employee Suit in California
MACQUARIE BANK: Judge Okays AU$82.5MM Storm Financial Settlement
MARATHON OIL: Faces Class Action Over April 27 Fire

MCGRAW-HILL COS: Dismissal of "Bahash" Suit Affirmed in December
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Dismissal of New York Class Suits Now Final
MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 4,560 Touch Point Heaters
NEW YORK: Discovery Phase in East Ramapo Class Action May Proceed
NEW YORK: Judge Extends Eviction Deadline Amid Class Action

NESTLE PIZZA: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
OLD SECOND: Awaits Preliminary Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
PURE HERBS: Recalls Protein Extract Over Undeclared Allergens
SAKS INC: Continues to Defend Two Suits Alleging FLSA Violations
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Data Breach

SEARS HOLDINGS: Defends Suits Alleging Environmental Claims
SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Defends Wage and Hour Class Action Suits
SOULCYCLE: Former Instructor Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits 2013 Trial Setting in Suit vs. Officers

SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Appellate Ruling in ERISA Violations Suit
SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Order in Suit Over Benefit Plan Amendments
SUPERMEDIA INC: Faces Companion Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
SUPERMEDIA INC: Has Settled Discrimination Claim for Nominal Amt.
SUPERMEDIA INC: Judgment Bids in Suit vs. EBC Remains Pending

SURLY BIKES: Recalls 975 Pugsley Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Risk
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Sao Paulo Prosecutor Suit's Appeal Pending
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Still Defends Suits Related to SISTEL Plan
TIBOR'S GOURMET: Jons Marketplace Received Recalled Products
TORO CO: Recalls 3,760 Zero Turn Riding Mowers Due to Fire Hazard

TORONTO COMMUNITY: Settles Tenants' Class Action Over 2010 Fire
UCI HOLDINGS: Defends Canadian Antitrust Suits vs. Champion
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lab Retirees Mull Class Action
VISA INC: Merchant Groups Post Swipe-Fee Notices to Avoid Sanction
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mislabeled Curried and Vegan Chicken Salad

XYMOGEN: Recalls artriphen Over Undeclared Milk & Soy

* French Government to Allow Class Actions Against Companies
* Rust Consulting Ordered to Correct Settlement Check Errors


                             *********


ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of "Schmidt" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other affiliated defendants seek
the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by Alan Schmidt,
according to the Company's March 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Alan Schmidt, a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation
("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating
Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
June 2012.  The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including the
Company, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by the Company
in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the chief executive officer and a
director of the Company, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino,
both of whom are Company executives (the "Access Defendants").
With respect to the Access Defendants, the complaint alleges
direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera
and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to
Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in
connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets,
aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the Access
Defendants.  Schmidt seeks money damages, disgorgement of any
distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by
the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs.  On December 19,
2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint which asserts
substantially the same allegations with respect to the Access
Defendants.

On February 4, 2013, the Access Defendants moved to dismiss all
claims asserted against them.  Schmidt has not yet responded to
the Access Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Company has advised
that it intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.accesspharma.com/-- is
a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  The
Company is an emerging biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing a range of pharmaceutical products primarily based upon
the Company's nanopolymer chemistry technologies and other drug
delivery technologies.


AGRICO CHEMICAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Copper, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that a
circuit judge has given preliminary approval to a $9.5 million
lawsuit settlement concerning pollution in East Hill from a
superfund site.

On April 30, Judge Joel Boles tentatively signed-off on the
settlement in a class action suit that alleges pollution from the
old Agrico Chemical Co., a now-closed fertilizer plant in central
Pensacola, seeped into groundwater and migrated southeast toward
Bayou Texar and Pensacola Bay.  The site is now owned by
ConocoPhillips.

Judge Boles' action allows a fund administrator to contact all
property owners in the affected area and offer them participation
in the settlement.  That's a total of about 5,000 owners.  A
second hearing before Boles is set for September to finalize the
settlement.  Compensation checks could get sent to the property
owners by Christmas.

The suit was filed in 2008 by the Pensacola law firm of Aylstock,
Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz.

"It's been a long process, but that's par for the course in
litigation, especially complicated environmental cases like this,"
said Nathan Bess, an attorney with Aylstock who worked on the
case.

"It's very important to Pensacola to hold companies like
Agrico/Connoco accountable, especially when this plume continues
to migrate in the groundwater," Mr. Bess said.  "It's not a
complete solution.  The chemicals are still in the water.  But, at
least the property owners are given a much more fair shake in
terms of being compensated."

The settlement establishes two settlement areas, Thomas Sub-Class
and the Rabin Sub-Class. Both of those include about 2,500 parcels
each.

The Thomas Sub-Class is bordered on Cross Street in the north,
Davis Highway to the west, East Brainerd Street in the South and
Bayou Texar in the East.  This is the area that was suffered more
from the pollution, Bess said, and will receive greater
compensation, roughly $2,500 to $3,000 per parcel.

The Rabin Sub-Class hugs the west side of the Thomas Sub-Class,
also bordered on the north by Cross and on the west by North
Palafox Street.  Its edge doglegs east on East Wright Street, and
turns south on 9th Avenue, ending at Pensacola Bay.

Property owners in the Rabin-Sub Class will likely receive $200 to
$250 each.

The Agrico plant, where a variety of chemicals and fertilizers
were manufactured, is located on 35 acres at what is now the
northwest intersection of Fairfield Drive and Interstate 110.

The facility opened in 1889 and closed in 1975.  The site was
added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund list
in 1989.

An earlier lawsuit reached a $70 million out-of-court settlement
to compensate some 3,000 property closer to the plant and north of
Cross Street.


ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Awaits OK of Product Liability Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials, LLC, is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of consolidated class action lawsuit asserting product
liability claims, according to the Company's March 21, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 29, 2012.

On September 20, 2010, the Company and its subsidiary, Gentek
Buildings Products, Inc., were named as defendants in an action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et al. v. Gentek
Building Products, Inc., et al (the "Eliason complaint").  The
complaint was filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel
and aluminum siding products manufactured by the Company and
Gentek or their predecessors.  The plaintiffs assert a breach of
express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action,
claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to
peel off the metal and that the Company and Gentek have failed
adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace
or refinish the defective siding.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the
defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful
practices, together with attorneys' fees, costs and interest.
Since such time that the Eliason complaint was filed, seven
additional putative class actions have been filed.

On January 26, 2012, the Company filed a motion to coordinate or
consolidate the actions as a multidistrict litigation.  The
Plaintiffs in all cases agreed to a temporary stay while the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered the motion.
On April 17, 2012, the Panel issued an order denying the Company's
motion to consolidate on the basis that since all plaintiffs' have
agreed to voluntarily dismiss their actions and re-file their
cases in the Northern District of Ohio, there is no need to
formally order the consolidation.  On May 3, 2012, a complaint was
filed in the Northern District of Ohio, consolidating the five
actions that previously had been pending in other states (the
"Patrick action").  On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs in the three
actions already pending in the Northern District of Ohio filed a
motion to consolidate those actions with the Patrick action, but
specifically requesting that the first-filed action by plaintiff
Eliason be permitted to proceed under a separate caption and on
its own track.  That same day, the Court issued an order requiring
the parties to advise if any party objects to consolidation and
requiring the parties to submit a joint consolidated pretrial
schedule within ten days.  The Defendants filed a motion
consenting to consolidation but requesting that all cases be
consolidated under a single caption and proceed on a single track.
On September 6, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' request for consolidation of all cases under a single
caption, proceeding on a single track.  The Court also ordered
plaintiffs to file their single consolidated amended complaint by
September 19, 2012, which the plaintiffs did.

The Court also conducted a case management conference on September
5, 2012.  At that conference, the Court deferred setting most case
deadlines to permit the parties to attempt to resolve the case by
mediation.  A non-binding mediation was held on November 13, 2012.
Subsequent to the mediation, on
February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement
and Release of Claims (the "Settlement") with the named
plaintiffs.  A preliminary approval hearing was held by the Court
on March 4, 2013, and the Settlement was preliminarily approved by
the Court on March 5, 2013.  The Settlement remains subject to
final approval by the Court.

The Settlement provides for the certification of a class for
settlement purposes only of commercial and residential property
owners who purchased steel siding manufactured and warranted by
the Company during the period January 1, 1991, to the date on
which notice of the proposed Settlement is first sent to
settlement class members and whose siding allegedly experienced
"Steel Peel," which is characterized for the purposes of
settlement by the separation of any layer of the finish on the
steel siding from the steel siding itself.  Subject to the terms
and conditions of the Settlement, the Company has agreed that (1)
the first time an eligible settlement class member submits a valid
Steel Peel warranty claim for siding, the Company will, at its
option, repair or replace the siding or, at such class member's
option, make a cash settlement payment to such class member equal
to the cost to the Company of the repair or replacement option
selected by the Company; (2) the second time such class member
submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for the same siding, the
same options will be available; and (3) the third time such a
claim is submitted, such class member may elect to have the
Company either refinish or replace the siding or may elect to
receive a one-time $8,000 payment.  If the $8,000 payment option
is chosen, the Company will have no further obligation to such
class member in connection with the warranty.

Under the Settlement, the Company has agreed to pay the sum of
$2.5 million to compensate class counsel for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with
the lawsuit.  The Company will also pay the costs associated with
executing the notice provisions of the Settlement, which are
estimated to be approximately $0.6 million.  The Company expects
to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement;
however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs, which
currently cannot be estimated for recognition purposes, will be
material.

The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability,
culpability, negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the Company,
and the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims
asserted.  Upon final approval by the court, the Settlement will
release all claims that were or could have been asserted against
the Company in the lawsuit or that relate to any aspect of the
subject matter of the lawsuit.

Associated Materials, LLC -- http://www.associatedmaterials.com/-
- is a vertically integrated manufacturer and distributor of
exterior residential building products in the United States and
Canada.  The Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio-based Company  produces a
comprehensive offering of exterior building products, including
vinyl windows, vinyl siding, aluminum trim coil and aluminum and
steel siding and accessories, which the Company produces at its 11
manufacturing facilities.


CALIFORNIA: Inmates File Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paige St. John, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
inmates at California's highest security prison on May 2 filed for
class-action status, seeking to broaden their 3-year-old federal
lawsuit alleging the state's segregation policies equate to cruel
and inhumane treatment.

The plaintiffs are all prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison,
confined to the Security Housing Unit for what the state says are
active ties with prison gangs, allegations the inmates deny.  In
the motion filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland, the prisoners
contend they have been confined for years, and in some cases
decades, to solitary, windowless cells where they spend almost all
of their time, with little meaningful contact with others,
restricted food, limited communication and no access to
educational or treatment programs.

Amnesty International in a report last fall criticized
California's use of long-term isolation cells as inhumane.

State corrections officials maintain the system is necessary to
limit the ability of prison gangs to operate, and that the safety
and security of both inmates and guards statewide is at risk
otherwise.  However, late last year the state rolled out what it
said is a three-year trial program that allows some SHU inmates to
slowly be transferred into the general population.  A federal
judge this year refused California's request to put off hearing
the litigation while that program unfolds.

Lawyers for the attorney general's office are due to file their
own response to the May 2 legal motion.  The prisoners seek a
ruling on their motion for class-action certification by early
August.  If granted, that would broaden the case to include all
inmates held in solitary confinement at the prison.

In their lawsuit, filed by prisoners' rights lawyers in New York,
Pelican Bay inmates allege the process California uses to put
inmates into solitary confinement is flawed, requires minimal
evidence and doesn't allow meaningful challenges.  They say those
"warehoused" under such conditions suffer serious mental and
physical harm from extreme isolation, sensory deprivation and
restricted movement.

"The magnitude of the suffering that they have endured, and the
full measure of what they have lost over the course of the last
two decades of their lives, is difficult to fathom," Craig Haney,
a prison psychologist who has followed the plaintiffs for the past
20 years, is quoted in one of the court filings.  "These prisoners
have lost a connection to the basic sense of who they 'were.' "

The court filing says there are about 1,000 inmates in Pelican
Bay's SHU; half have been there more than a decade, and 78 for
more than 20 years.


CHICO'S FAS: Bid to Certify "Schlim" Suit Class Denied in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Schlim's motion to certify a class was denied in March
2013, according to Chico's FAS, Inc.'s March 20, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended February 2, 2013.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Eileen Schlim v. Chico's
FAS, Inc.  The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, and
failure to issue timely final pay, among other things.  The
Company denied the material allegations of the Complaint and
believes that its policies and procedures for paying its
associates comply with all applicable California laws.  On or
about March 5, 2013, the Court entered an order denying the
plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class action.  Unless
that order is appealed and overturned on appeal, this matter will
proceed as a single plaintiff case only.  As a result, unless
overturned on appeal, this matter will no longer be reported in
the Company's quarterly or annual reports.

Headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida, Chico's FAS, Inc. --
http://www.chicosfas.com/-- is a cultivator of brands serving the
lifestyle needs of fashion-savvy women 35 years and older.  The
Company's portfolio of brands currently consists of four brands:
Chico's, White House|Black Market, Soma Intimates and Boston
Proper.


CITY HOLDING: Expected "Casto" Suit to Be Closed by Q1 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
City Holding Company said in its March 20, 2013, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that it anticipates the
administration of its settlement of the class action lawsuit
titled Thomas Casto v. City National Bank, N.A., will be completed
by the end of the first quarter of 2013 or shortly thereafter.

City National Bank, N.A., is currently in a civil action pending
in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, in a case
styled Thomas Casto v. City National Bank, N.A. ("Casto").  This
putative class action asserts that the plaintiffs, and others
similarly situated, were wrongfully assessed overdraft fees in
connection with City National Bank accounts.  The plaintiffs
alleged that City National Bank's policy of posting debit and
check transactions from high to low order was in violation of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, constituted a
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
created an unjust enrichment to City National Bank.  In February
2012, City National Bank and the plaintiffs' attorneys in the
Casto case submitted an Amended Preliminary Motion to Approve
Settlement to the Kanawha County Circuit Court.  This motion asked
the Court to approve a settlement in which City National Bank will
pay the eligible members of the class a total of $3.616 million
and will forgive and release $3.5 million in account balances of
accounts of former customers who are no longer customers of the
bank, but left overdrawn accounts.  The amounts were increased
from the initial Preliminary Motion for Approval due to a systems
error in harvesting information regarding City National Bank's
customers.  The Court has approved the settlement and the Company
anticipates the settlement administration will be completed and a
final judgment order will be entered by the end of the first
quarter 2013 or shortly thereafter.  At December 31, 2011, the
Company had accrued for this probable loss.  During the first
quarter of 2012, the Company deposited the funds into a qualified
settlement fund.

City Holding Company, a West Virginia corporation headquartered in
Charleston, West Virginia, is a financial holding company and a
bank holding company that provides diversified financial products
and services to consumers and local businesses.  Through its
network of banking offices in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia
and Ohio, the Company provides credit, deposit, trust and
investment management, and insurance products and services to its
customers.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Fuel MDL Settlement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corporation, alleging that they have been overcharging
consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60
degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-
related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on
the energy equivalent received by the consumer.  The Company is
named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis
Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No.
07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James
Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-
193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al.
v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark
Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D.
Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al.,
v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane
Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al.
v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D.
Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No.
4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker,
et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293
(D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr.,
et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);
Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-
00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp.,
et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant.  Under the settlement, the
Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over five
years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-
correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members.  On September 22,
2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which
did not materially alter the terms.

On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised
settlement.  A class member who objected has filed a notice of
appeal from the order approving the settlement.  The Plaintiffs
have moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as well
as an award of costs and payments to class representatives.  The
Company has opposed the motion.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 20, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended February 17, 2013.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries operate
membership warehouses based on the concept that offering members
low prices on a limited selection of nationally branded and select
private-label products in a wide range of merchandise categories
will produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover.  The
Issaquah, Washington-based Company also operates online businesses
at costco.com in the U.S., costco.ca in Canada, and costco.co.uk
in the U.K.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Trial in "Ellis" Suit Set for January 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in the class action lawsuit styled Shirley "Rae" Ellis v.
Costco Wholesale Corp. has been set for January 2014, according to
the Company's March 20, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 17, 2013.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law, Shirley "Rae" Ellis
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (San
Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-MHP.  The Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the district court on January 11, 2007.  On September 16, 2011,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the order of class certification and remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.  On September 25, 2012, the
district court certified a class of women in the United States
denied promotion to warehouse general manager or assistant general
manager since January 3, 2002.  Currently the class is believed to
be approximately 1,250 people.  A trial has been set for January
2014.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries operate
membership warehouses based on the concept that offering members
low prices on a limited selection of nationally branded and select
private-label products in a wide range of merchandise categories
will produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover.  The
Issaquah, Washington-based Company also operates online businesses
at costco.com in the U.S., costco.ca in Canada, and costco.co.uk
in the U.K.


CREIG NORTHROP: Faces $11-Mil. Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Business Journal reports that a Howard County couple is
suing the Creig Northrop Team of Long & Foster Real Estate and
Columbia-based Lakeview Title Company Inc. for more than $11
million, the Baltimore Sun reported.

The suit alleges the companies had illegal financial ties.  It is
a proposed class action suit that could involve thousands of
homebuyers who purchased houses with Northrop since 2000 and used
Lakeview Title.


DIGITAL GENERATION: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Digital Generation, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, and docketed under 3:13-cv-
1684, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Digital
Generation between June 20, 2011 and February 19, 2013, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Digital Generation
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 1, 2013 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Digital Generation purports to be the "world's leading ad
management and distribution platform."  The Company claims to
connect over 12,000 global advertisers and 5,000 agencies with
their targeted audiences through an expansive network of over
40,000 media destinations across broadcast and digital in 75
countries, managing approximately ten percent of the world's media
assets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial performance, and prospects.  During
the Class Period, Digital Generation touted itself as a Company
achieving steady and consistent growth, and poised for a strategic
buyout on the basis of the Company's strong performance and
diversification.  In order to cultivate this image, defendants
made a series of false and/or misleading statements regarding its
growth and value of its acquisitions, failing to disclose that:
(i) the Company's online segment was grossly underperforming, and
well below the value reported to investors; (ii) past acquisitions
had masked the Company's declining revenue base; (iii) the Company
had vastly overpaid for its acquisition of Media Mind, Inc. and
other online segments in order to appear to be an attractive
acquisition target; (iv) the Company was not sufficiently poised
for a strategic partnership or buyout; and (v) as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 8, 2012, the Company reported that for the quarter
ending September 30, 2012, an impairment charge of over $208
million was taken against the online media assets it had just
recently acquired: Media Mind, Inc., Eye Wonder and Peer 39.  This
impairment represented a staggering 33% write-down of the initial
purchase price of these assets.  The Company also reported that
its television unit took an impairment charge of over $131
million.

On February 19, 2013, the Company issued a press release
announcing that a Special Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors had failed to approve any transaction or strategic
alternative.  In addition, the Company recorded an additional
$11.4 million write-down of its recently acquired online segments.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $2.53 per share or
over 28% to close on February 19, 2013 at $6.45 per share.

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


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is defending a number of wage and hour class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's March 21, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing
various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime or
were not provided work breaks or other benefits.  The complaints
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or
both.  The Company does not believe that a material loss is
reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters.

FedEx Corporation -- http://www.fedex.com/-- operates a package
specialty air freight service in the U.S. offering door-to-door
overnight delivery by operating its own integrated air-ground
transportation system.  FedEx was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


FEDEX CORP: Defends Unit From Suits Over Owner-Operator Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to defend a subsidiary against
lawsuits and proceedings alleging that its owner-operators should
be treated as employees, according to the Company's March 21,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2013.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") is involved in
numerous class-action lawsuits (including 31 that have been
certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and
other administrative proceedings that claim that its owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent
contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).  In sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's
summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation
cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the
owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the
law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana,
Kansas (the court previously dismissed without prejudice the
nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these
20 cases.  The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case
in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not
make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act.  The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits.
Specifically, in the five cases in Arkansas, California, Florida,
and Oregon (two certified cases), the court's ruling granted
summary judgment in FedEx Ground's favor on all of the certified
claims but did not decide the uncertified claims.  In the cases
filed in Kentucky and New Hampshire, the court ruled in favor of
FedEx Ground on some of the claims and against FedEx Ground on at
least one claim.  In May 2012, the Oregon district court dismissed
the two Oregon cases, but in June 2012, the plaintiffs in both
cases filed notices of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Company settled the individual claims in the
California case for an immaterial amount, and in November 2012,
the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal as to the certified claims
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In June 2012, the Kentucky
district court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on certain of the
plaintiffs' claims, thereby reducing the Company's potential
exposure in the matter.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of the multidistrict litigation, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground,
was certified as a class action by a Washington state court. The
plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of single-route, pickup-
and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from December 21, 2001,
through December 31, 2005, and allege that the class members
should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and
should receive overtime pay.  In March 2009, a jury trial in the
Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor
of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class members were
independent contractors, not employees.  The plaintiffs appealed
the verdict.  In December 2010, the Washington Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including a new
trial.  The Company filed a motion to reconsider, and this motion
was denied.  In March 2011, the Company filed a discretionary
appeal with the Washington Supreme Court, and in August 2011, that
petition was granted.  The Washington Supreme Court heard oral
argument in February 2012.  In July 2012, the Washington Supreme
Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals' reversal of the
jury verdict and remanded the case to the trial court.

In August 2010, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that
is not part of the multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx
Ground, was certified as a class action by a Colorado state court.
The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class of single-route,
pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Colorado who drove vehicles
weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time from
August 27, 2005, through the present.  The lawsuit seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys' fees
and costs, under Colorado law.  The Company's applications for
appeal challenging this class certification decision have been
rejected.  The Company settled this matter for an immaterial
amount, subject to court approval, in June 2012.

In August 2012, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that
was not part of the multidistrict litigation, Scovil v. FedEx
Ground, was certified as a class action by the federal district
court in Maine.  The court certified two state law claims seeking
overtime and alleged illegal deductions; class notices were sent
out to 143 potential class members; and three individuals opted
out.  The court also previously certified an opt-in class for the
Fair Labor Standards Act claims, and 21 people opted into this
class.

Other contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of
the multidistrict litigation are in varying stages of litigation.

With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to
the classification of FedEx Ground's owner-operators as
independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the
attorney general in New York filed a lawsuit against FedEx Ground
challenging the validity of the contractor model.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that its independent contractor model will be upheld.  Adverse
determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent
contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain
of the Company's contractors and their drivers to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-
hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit
liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in
certain jurisdictions.  The Company believes that FedEx Ground's
owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors
and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the
Company's independent contractors.  While it is reasonably
possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such
changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's
owner-operators could be material, the Company cannot yet
determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss.  A
number of factors contribute to this.  The number of plaintiffs in
these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and
others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still
ongoing.  In addition, the parties have not yet conducted any
discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from
plaintiff to plaintiff.  Further, the range of potential loss
could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of
certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on
evidentiary issues.  In any event, the Company does not believe
that a material loss is probable in these matters.

FedEx Corporation -- http://www.fedex.com/-- operates a package
specialty air freight service in the U.S. offering door-to-door
overnight delivery by operating its own integrated air-ground
transportation system.  FedEx was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Proposed Hotspurs Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstCity Financial Corporation is facing two class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with Hotspurs Holdings
LLC, according to the Company's March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2012, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Hotspurs Holdings LLC ("Parent") and Hotspurs
Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Subsidiary") pursuant to which
the Company will become a private company that is wholly owned by
Parent. Parent and Merger Subsidiary are affiliates of certain
private investment funds governed by Varde Partners, Inc.
("Varde"). Under the terms of the merger agreement, FirstCity
stockholders will receive $10.00 per share in cash for each share
of FirstCity stock they own. The transaction is expected to close
in the second quarter of 2013.

On January 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the District Court in McLennan County, Texas, against the Company,
its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary and Varde purportedly on
behalf of the Company's stockholders, under the caption Eric J.
Drayer v. James T. Sartain, et. al., Cause No. 2013-246-5.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with Varde's merger proposal and that Varde, Parent and
Merger Subsidiary have aided and abetted such breaches.  The
plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and, in the event the transaction is
consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages
and an accounting of all damages, profits and special benefits.
On February 13, 2013, a first amended petition was filed.  The
amended petition alleges that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to maximize the value of the
Company, (ii) taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, (iii)
failing to properly value the Company and (iv) omitting material
information and providing materially misleading information in the
preliminary proxy statement, and seeks the same relief and asserts
the same claims as the original petition.

On January 29, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary and Varde
purportedly on behalf of the Company's stockholders, under the
caption Paul Perry v. FirstCity Financial Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 8259-VCG.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by entering into the merger agreement and
that the Company, Varde, Parent and Merger Subsidiary have aided
and abetted such breaches.  The plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and, in
the event the transaction is consummated, rescission of the
transaction and an accounting of all damages, profits and special
benefits.  On February 15, 2013, a first amended complaint was
filed adding Varde Management, L.P. as a defendant.  The amended
complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to the merger consideration which
undervalues the Company, (ii) agreeing to the terms of the merger
agreement which deter other bidders and (iii) omitting material
information and providing materially misleading information in the
preliminary proxy statement, and seeks the same relief and asserts
the same claims as the original complaint.

The Defendants have not yet filed any responsive pleadings or
motions to the amended petitions.  In the Perry lawsuit, the
plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction and sought
expedited discovery, but no hearings or proceedings have been
scheduled on either motion.  The Company believes that the claims
in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against them.  However, there can be no assurance as
to the outcome of these lawsuits.

FirstCity Financial Corporation -- http://www.fcfc.com/-- a
Delaware corporation, is a multi-national specialty financial
services company headquartered in Waco, Texas.  The Company
engages in two major business segments -- Portfolio Asset
Acquisition and Resolution business segment and Special Situations
Platform business segment.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Defends Securities Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., is defending a securities class
action lawsuit in Texas, according to the Company's March 20,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 18, 2012, the Company announced its intention to restate
its financial statements for the years ended December 28, 2009,
January 3, 2011, and January 2, 2012, and the related interim
periods.  On July 20, 2012, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against the Company, certain of its current directors and
officers and the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering.  The plaintiffs allege that all the defendants violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and certain of the Company's directors and officers have control
person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act, based on
allegations that in light of the July 18, 2012 restatement
announcement, the Company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and the
Company is vigorously defending the lawsuit.  However, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome of this case and any future
related cases.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.,
-- http://www.igniterestaurants.com/-- a Delaware corporation
incorporated in 2002, operates two restaurant brands, Joe's Crab
Shack and Brick House Tavern + Tap.


JOLLY GOOD: Recalls 1,471 Pounds of Pork Meat Pie Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Jolly Good Meat Products, a Los Angeles, California establishment,
is recalling approximately 1,471 pounds of pork meat pie products
because of misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.  The products contain milk, a known allergen
which is not declared on the product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 7-oz. packages of "Jolly Good Melton Mowbray Brand Pie"
     bearing the establishment number "Est. 6216" inside the USDA
     mark of inspection.  The packages contain two pork pies.
     The products were produced on various dates from November 8,
     2012, through April 24, 2013.

The products were distributed to restaurants and distributors in
California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review.
Milk is a subingredient of margarine used in the product.  While
margarine is listed as an ingredient in the product package, milk
is not listed.  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 Rodney Martin Lunt, Jolly Good Meat Products' Owner, at
(323) 290-2265.

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


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

The Tahini product was distributed nationwide through retail
stores.

The TAHINI sesame paste product is sold in 1 LB glass jars, 2 LB
glass jars and in 40 LB plastic pails.  The UPC codes for the
following products: 1 LB jar is 0-75013-28500-3, 2 LB jar is 0-
75013-28510-2 and 40 LB pail 0-75013-04018-3.  The recalled lots
have a code stamped on the lid between "EXP JAN 01 - 2014 up to
and including EXP JUN 08 - 2014" and "EXP OCT 16 - 2014" up to and
including "EXP MAR 15 - 2015".  Picture of the recalled products'
label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm351643.htm

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

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

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product are urged to
discard the product and return the gold cap stamped with the
following dates: "EXP JAN 01 - 2014 up to and including EXP JUN 08
- 2014" and EXP OCT 16 - 2014" up to and including "EXP MAR 15 -
2015.  Provide proof of purchase for a full refund to:

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

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

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


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Defends "Chaikin" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. is defending a class action lawsuit filed
by Laura Chaikin, et al., according to the Company's
March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended February 3, 2013.

On August 10, 2012, customers of the Company filed a class action
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court entitled Laura Chaikin, et al.
v. lululemon athletica inc.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company
violated California Civil Code sections by requesting and
capturing personal information from guests using credit cards at
the point-of-sale in stores.  The plaintiffs are seeking an
unspecified amount of damages.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend the matter.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel operating
primarily in North America and Australia.  The Company's yoga-
inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica and
ivivva athletica brand names.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Defends "Geare" Employee Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. is defending an employee class action
lawsuit initiated by Rebekah Geare, et al., according to the
Company's March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 3,
2013.

On October 12, 2012, former hourly employees of the Company filed
a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California entitled Rebekah Geare, et al. v. lululemon athletica
inc.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various U.S.
labor codes by failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to
pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, failing to pay certain
wages, failing to provide reasonable seating and failing to
provide unpaid vacation times as wages at time of termination.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend the matter.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel operating
primarily in North America and Australia.  The Company's yoga-
inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica and
ivivva athletica brand names.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia.


MACQUARIE BANK: Judge Okays AU$82.5MM Storm Financial Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marx, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a Federal
Court judge in Brisbane has approved an AU$82.5 million settlement
of a class action launched by Storm Financial victims against
Macquarie Bank.

The decision by Justice John Logan, announced late on May 3, will
assist 1050 Storm clients who had taken out about AU$275 million
worth of high-risk margin loans to invest in the doomed company,
which collapsed in 2009.

Investors hugged one another and expressed relief after the
ruling.

"I'm very happy.  We asked for a fair settlement and that's what
we got," Storm client Maggie McGowan said.

Under the deal, the 315 investors who paid the AU$5.5 million
legal tab will recover 42 per cent of their contributions, while
those who did not contribute will claw back just 17.6 per cent.

Justice Logan described the plan as a "fair and reasonable" end to
a complex case and said it would avoid an appeals process which
could have dragged on until 2016.  "A bird in the hand is worth
two in the bush," he said.

Justice Logan rejected a raft of concerns raised by the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission, including objections over
the "arbitrary" 35 per cent premium awarded to those who
bankrolled the action.

Class action barrister Douglas Campbell and bank barrister John
Sheahan said the compromise deal was reached following intense
negotiations.  A committee of seven investors had been
instrumental in approving the settlement terms and the deal had
won the backing of all but 3 per cent of those affected, he said,

The bank said the deal, which was reached in the middle of March,
would have no effect on its bottom line and was struck with no
admission of liability.  A separate ASIC action against Macquarie
over its Storm involvement remains before the court.

Law firm Levitt Robinson launched the class action in late 2010,
accusing the bank of alleged breach of contract, unconscionable
conduct and liabilities as a linked credit provider.

The trial started last September and included testimony from lead
plaintiff Tracey Richards, a single mother with few assets and a
AU$24,000 annual income who was approved for a AU$2 million line
of credit.  She was among the 3000 Storm investors wiped out in
the 2008 sharemarket crash and now lives in a caravan park outside
Perth.

Levitt Robinson is also running class actions against the
Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and the Bank of Queensland.  It is
understood that negotiations have started with BoQ.

The Commonwealth Bank has already agreed to pay out nearly AU$270
million in negotiated settlements with about 2000 Storm victims.


MARATHON OIL: Faces Class Action Over April 27 Fire
---------------------------------------------------
Dave Herndon, writing for The News-Herald, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Marathon Oil refinery by
two law firms after an explosion and fire April 27.

The Bloomfield Hills-based Hertz Schram and the Detroit-based
Macuga, Sheets and Dubin firms announced on May 2 they had filed a
suit seeking more than $25,000 in damages on behalf of residents
affected by the fire and its after-effects.

"These residents are concerned for their safety and want answers
about what happened last Saturday," said Liz Thompson, one of the
lawyers who filed the suit.  "These people were forced to flee
their homes for several hours while firefighters battled the
blaze."

The explosion happened at about 6:00 p.m. and the ensuing fire
took about two hours to extinguish.

The refinery has a Detroit address but occupies a large section of
land in Melvindale.  An hour after the fire began, Melvindale
residents were evacuated from their houses east of Wall Street.
Those in the area, from Dix-Toledo to Outer Drive, were asked to
go to the city-owned ice arena while the air was tested for
harmful substances.  Detroit residents have been complaining that
authorities in their city never issued an evacuation notice.

Marathon Petroleum spokesman Shane Pochard said the company did
"extensive air monitoring" before giving the all-clear to allow
residents back into the area.  No one was injured in the explosion
or the fire.  Beginning in one of the "smaller" tanks, the fire
burned for approximately two hours, sending a plume of ink-black
of smoke into the air that could be seen for miles.  Mr. Pochard
said the tank was a storage unit for petrochemical feedstock for
production units.

The refinery recently underwent a $2.2 billion expansion that
allowed it to increase its daily production from 106,000 to
120,000 barrels.  It is the only active refinery in Michigan.
Since the renovation, the Findlay, Ohio-based company has been
buying nearby houses to create an expanded buffer zone between
residents and the refinery's 250 acres.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Dismissal of "Bahash" Suit Affirmed in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. disclosed in its March 20, 2013,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the
dismissal of a shareholder class action lawsuit filed by Reese v.
Bahash was affirmed in December 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 chief executive officer
and former chief financial officer were named as defendants in the
lawsuit, 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 business
practices of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC ("S&P").  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.  The 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.

New York-based The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. --
http://www.computershare.com/-- is a content and analytics
provider serving the capital, commodities and commercial markets.
The Company serves its global customers through a broad range of
products and services available through both third-party and
proprietary distribution channels.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Dismissal of New York Class Suits Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissals of class action lawsuits filed in New York are now
final, according to The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.'s March 20,
2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

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 Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("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.

New York-based The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. --
http://www.computershare.com/-- is a content and analytics
provider serving the capital, commodities and commercial markets.
The Company serves its global customers through a broad range of
products and services available through both third-party and
proprietary distribution channels.


MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 4,560 Touch Point Heaters
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Meijer Distribution Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan; and
manufacturer Foshan Guanmei Electrical Co., LTD., of Foshan,
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,560 Touch Point
Portable Baseboard Convection 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 to consumers.

Meijer has received two reports of overheating incidents,
including one report of a fire that resulted in minor property
damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Touch Point brand portable, electric
baseboard convection heaters with model BBC-1500 and date code
0611.  "Touch Point" can be found on the front of the product and
the model and date code can be found on a silver sticker on the
back side of the product.  The heaters were manufactured in June
2011.  The heaters are black and measures approximately 30-inches
long by 6-inches deep by 12-inches high.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/LGfsVI

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Meijer stores from September 2011 through February
2013 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heaters and
return the product to a Meijer customer service desk for a full
refund.  Meijer may be reached at (800) 927-8699 anytime, or
online at http://www.meijer.com/and click on Product Recalls
under the Help section.


NEW YORK: Discovery Phase in East Ramapo Class Action May Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LoHud.com reports that nine months after parents filed a federal
lawsuit accusing East Ramapo school officials of steering public
tax dollars to private religious schools and segregating special-
education students, the records-gathering process in the case can
begin.

A judge ruled on a handful of motions in federal court on May 2
allowing the discovery process to move forward after months of
contention between the district's lawyers and Advocates for
Justice, the New York City public-interest law firm representing
more than 300 plaintiffs in the suit.

U.S. Magistrate Judge George Yanthis' rulings resulted in wins and
losses for each side during the 2 1/2 hour proceeding: Lawyer
David Butler will continue representing the school district after
Judge Yanthis dismissed the Advocates' motion that his involvement
posed a conflict of interest.  He also ruled the district cannot
be a plaintiff in the Advocates' case against its will; it will be
a defendant.

"They cannot point to a conflict.  There is none," Mr. Butler
said, in response to Advocates lawyer Arthur Schwartz's arguments
that he should be off the case because he is representing East
Ramapo in several other suits -- particularly the district's own
major case against the state Education Department.

The Advocates, meanwhile, will gain access to a stash of documents
from the district and its attorney for everyday matters, Albert
D'Agostino, that detail out-of-district placements East Ramapo has
arranged for almost 300 special-education students.  Such records
are protected by federal privacy laws; Judge Yanthis ruled that
they could be disclosed in a redacted form with the students'
initials and state ID numbers included.

The Advocates are seeking a much broader records disclosure
including which placements were not reimbursed by the state; that
request will be put on hold for the moment, Judge Yanthis said.

"There will be more discovery . . . but we've got to get started,"
he said.

The Advocates' case could hinge on parsing the evidence to show
how much the district has spent -- for special education and in
other areas -- on its private school population versus its public
school population.  The public school students are outnumbered by
more than 2-to-1, a disparity that makes East Ramapo unlike any
other district in New York.


NEW YORK: Judge Extends Eviction Deadline Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Brownstone, writing for The Village Voice, reports that six
months after Hurricane Sandy swept across New York City's
coastlines, most people affected by the storm have moved on from
crisis mode.  Power's back, insurance has (hopefully) kicked in.
But there's a smaller group of people -- a little less than 200
households altogether -- for whom Hurricane Sandy is still an
everyday battle.  This time, though, they're not wrestling with
storm surge.  Their fight is with the city.

Some 1,500 people have lived in New York City hotels with the
assistance of the Department of Homeless Services after their
homes were destroyed by Sandy.  Those who haven't yet found new
housing are called "homeless," but they weren't before the storm.
Some lost their jobs in the aftermath, some are undocumented --
and at least one is a recovering victim of a violent crime.  In
March, the DHS sent notice that the hotel-dwellers had until April
30 to leave, despite the fact that some housing was not yet ready
for the 125 households that were in the middle of transitioning,
and that 71 other households had no place to go at all.

The judge extended that deadline until May 15, but victims could
find themselves in the same situation in another two.

On April 30, the city defended itself in court against a class-
action suit blasting the DHS for poor handling of these refugees'
cases.  Leslie Brown, one of the plaintiffs, told the Voice that
her caseworker showed her only one house, an illegally-converted
"three-quarters" home in the Bronx, in which she could take one
bunk bed in a room with two bunk beds.

"I wouldn't take it, so they said I'm resistant -- I'm not
complying," Ms. Brown said.  In order to live there, Ms. Brown
added, her caseworker told her she'd have to get a tetanus shot.
"I never lived in a place where you had to have a shot to live
there!"

Ms. Brown's caseworker told her two women's shelters were her last
option.  A shelter, though, is the last place Ms. Brown wants to
go: Almost a year ago to the day, she became the victim of an
unspeakably horrific crime, and as a result suffers from PTSD and
depression.  The Nassau County District Attorney had placed Brown
in a Staten Island hotel in the aftermath, but then that hotel was
soon destroyed by Sandy.  FEMA began helping Brown, but then
discontinued -- after which she was hospitalized for anxiety.

"We were under the impression we would be safe, that we'd be okay
until we found decent housing," she said.

The city's law department maintains that the DHS did its job and
that it's time for people like Leslie to leave.  "DHS caseworkers
have performed heroically in helping hundreds of Sandy victims
access a tremendous range of services and successfully transition
back to normal life in the six months since the storm," the
department told the Voice in a statement.

"Many families whose stays were not extended will return to loved
ones where they resided prior to the storm, or avail themselves of
the City's strong social services programs and shelter system
which can best accommodate their significant needs," DHS
spokeswoman Barbara Brancaccio said.  "Although vast, this was a
finite program and was never intended to be open-ended.  This is
consistent with the temporary housing assistance provided by FEMA,
which is being discontinued."

Councilman Donovan Richards, who has been hearing stories of early
eviction and unprofessional case management from his constituents
in the hotels, has been meeting with the DHS and Speaker Quinn to
work out a more sustainable solution than overburdened shelters.
"I think [DHS caseworkers] have to look harder and look smarter.
They need to be as flexible as possible," he told the Voice.

"Part of the problem is that there's not enough affordable housing
in this city," he added.  "And not the Bloomberg definition of
affordable housing -- but housing for working people who aren't at
the top of the ladder."

In the meantime, the city will find itself back in court on May
13, and the state will get an influx of funding from the federal
government -- some $1.7 billion -- for Sandy relief.  That boost
in figures should help, Richards said.

But Ms. Brown feels like she's only been treated like a number,
too.  "They don't care whether you lost everything in the storm or
not," she said.  "One day, you feel you're settled, somewhat
stable, and the next, it's 'get out!'"


NESTLE PIZZA: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Frozen Pizzas that have been recalled by Nestle Pizza Company.

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/rfCKPL,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      Location
    -------------      --------
    Albertson's        Stores in CA, LA, and TX
    Dillons            Stores in KS, and MO
    Dominicks          Stores in IL
    Fred Meyer         Stores in AK, OR, and WA
    Fry's              Stores in AZ
    H-E-B              Stores in TX
    Hyvee              Stores in IA, IL, KS, MN, MO, and NE
    King Sooper        Stores in CO, and WY
    Kroger             Stores in AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI,
                       MS, MO, NC, OH, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV
    Meijer             Stores in MI, IL, IN, KY, and OH
    Pick N Save        Stores in WI
    Publix             Stores in AL, FL, GA, and SC
    QFC                Stores in WA
    Ralph's            Stores in CA
    Randal's           Stores in TX
    Safeway            Stores in AZ, CA, CO, NE, OR, and WA
    Save Mart          Stores in CA, and NV
    Smiths             Stores in AZ, NV, UT, and WY
    Stater Bros        Stores in CA
    Target             Stores Nationwide
    Vons               Stores in CA
    Walmart            Stores in Nationwide

A copy of the complete list of retailers that received the
recalled products and the stores' locations is available for free
at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/RC_031_2013_Retail_List.pdf


OLD SECOND: Awaits Preliminary Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Second Bancorp, Inc., awaits preliminary approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the
Company's March 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On February 17, 2011, a former employee filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan and
Trust alleging that the Company, Old Second National Bank, the
Employee Benefits Committee of Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and
certain of the Company's officers and employees violated certain
disclosure requirements and fiduciary duties established under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA").  The complaint seeks equitable and as-of-yet
unquantified monetary relief.  Though the Company believes that
it, its affiliates, and its officers and employees have acted, and
continue to act, in compliance with ERISA law with respect to
these matters, without conceding liability, the named defendants
have negotiated a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs.

On February 26, 2013, the plaintiffs requested the court's
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement.  The
Company and its legal counsel expect that the settlement agreement
will be approved, and that the plaintiffs will therefore dismiss
the litigation with a release of all claims.  If approved, the
settlement agreement will not have a material adverse effect on
the financial statements of the Bank or on the consolidated
financial position of the Company because the entire settlement
amount will be paid by the Company's insurers.

Old Second Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.oldsecond.com/-- was
organized under the laws of Delaware in 1981 and is based in
Aurora, Illinois.  The Company conducts a full service community
banking and trust business and provides financial services through
its 27 banking locations that are located throughout the Chicago
metropolitan area.


PURE HERBS: Recalls Protein Extract Over Undeclared Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Herbs Ltd., Sterling Heights, Michigan, is voluntarily
recalling the 4 oz. and 1 oz. bottles of Protein Extract because
they contain undeclared allergens -- milk and soy.  This labeling
error was discovered during a routine Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) inspection when a review of the ingredients found that milk
and soy allergen ingredients were not listed on our main label.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk or soy
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.  There have been no illnesses reported
to date in connection with this product.  This product is a food
safety concern only for people who are allergic to milk or soy.
Customers with an allergy or sensitivity to milk or soy should not
consume this product.

This product has been shipped to distributors nationwide.  The
product reached consumers through mail orders, direct delivery or
retail stores.

The Protein extract product recalled was distributed prior to
April 30, 2013.  There are no expiration dates on the Protein
extract.  The Protein extract is packaged in 4oz and 1oz amber
glass bottles with a Pure Herbs Ltd. Logo, Natural Herbal Extracts
underneath the logo, and the name Protein on the front panel.
This voluntary recall is limited to the Protein Extract packaged
in 4 oz and 1 oz amber glass bottles.  All lot numbers are
included.  Lot numbers 243 and 050812, represent batch 101310
which was manufactured on October 13, 2010, and was distributed
from February 2012 to February 2013.  Lot number 012712A was
manufactured on January 27, 2012, and was distributed from March
2013 to April 2013.  The lot numbers are printed on the bottom of
the front panel to the right.  No other Pure Herbs, Ltd. products
are impacted.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm351526.htm

Pure Herbs, Ltd. will work with Distributors to ensure that the
recalled products are removed from their shelves.  The Company
asks that any un-used product be returned to be re-labeled.  New
labels have been printed that do declare these allergens and the
product is currently being labeled utilizing this new label
beginning May 3, 2013.  In the event that consumers who are
allergic to milk or soy have purchased the impacted product, they
may return it to Pure Herbs for a full refund. Consumers who wish
to return the product or have questions about this issue may call
(586)446-8200 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time to speak with Dana Smith or Barb Jacobs, Monday
through Fridays.


SAKS INC: Continues to Defend Two Suits Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs
v. Saks Incorporated, et al., filed a complaint, with which Saks
Incorporated was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class
and collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
California Labor Code and that the Company failed to pay overtime,
provide itemized wage statements and provide meal and rest
periods.  On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  The plaintiffs seek to
proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under the
California statutes on behalf of individuals who have been
employed by OFF 5TH as Selling and Service Managers, Merchandise
Team Managers, or Department Managers and similar titles.  On
February 8, 2012, the same plaintiffs' counsel from the Till case
filed a complaint, with which the Company was served on March 2,
2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging essentially the same FLSA claim and related claims
under New York state law (Tate - Small, et al. v. Saks
Incorporated et al).  This case was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 20, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 2, 2013.

The Company believes that its managers at OFF 5TH have been
properly classified as exempt under both federal and state law and
the Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.  The
Company says it is not possible to predict whether the courts will
permit these actions to proceed collectively or as a class.  The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, that may arise from these matters.

Saks Incorporated -- http://www.saksincorporated.com/-- is a
Tennessee corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's
operations consist of Saks Fifth Avenue stores and SFA's e-
commerce operations, as well as Saks Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH stores.
The Company is an omni-channel luxury retailer offering a wide
assortment of distinctive fashion apparel, shoes, accessories,
jewelry, cosmetics and gifts.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Buss, writing for News-Democrat, reports that a St. Louis
attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit against Schnuck Markets
Inc. in St. Clair County Circuit Court on behalf of consumers from
Illinois whose bank and credit accounts were compromised after
shopping at Schnucks grocery stores between December and March.

Attorney Jeffrey Millar, of Millar Law Firm LLC in St. Louis,
filed the lawsuit on April 25 on behalf of lead plaintiff Laverne
Rippy, who had shopped at Schnucks in Belleville.  Mr. Millar said
he is seeking a class-action suit on behalf of all other Illinois
residents who had shopped at 79 of Schnucks' 100 stores throughout
the Midwest between Dec. 10 and March 29 after learning his client
and potentially 2.4 million Schnucks customers' credit and debit
card numbers and expiration dates had been obtained.  Some of
those customers discovered between hundreds and thousands of
dollars spend under their accounts.

Mr. Millar said the lawsuit questions that if customers accounts
were compromised as early as Dec. 10, then why did it take the
company four months to notify customers?

"If December is the date, is four months reasonable amount of time
to notify customers?" Mr. Millar asked.  "Our position is why
didn't you notify them immediately?

"Did it really happen in December? If it did, why did you wait
four months to tell everybody?"

Schnuck Markets Inc. spokeswoman Lori Willis said that information
that the grocer shared on April 15 includes a timeline that
explains that the Maryland Heights, Mo.-based grocer learned about
the problem on March 15, when its credit and debit card processor
first contacted the company about 12 reports of fraud.  Schnucks
immediately launched an investigation and on March 30 declared
that it had contained the problem.  Customers who had used credit
or debit cards at Schnucks stores during the identified time were
advised to check with their bank or credit card company to make
sure their accounts were secure.

"A review of the facts that we provided in our released on
April 15 will show that the lawsuit has no merit," Ms. Willis
said.

Mr. Millar said Schnucks has not been served notice of the
lawsuit.  He said he anticipates to hear back from them by the end
of next month.

At least one other lawsuit, also claiming data breach, has been
filed against the grocer in Missouri.

According to The Telegraph's Sanford J. Schmidt, the suit asks
that the class be designated as "all Illinois citizens and
residents with individual monetary claims, not in excess of
$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, who shopped at
defendant's Illinois locations."

Mr. Millar claims some people had up to $10,000 worth of
fraudulent charges on their cards.

There also has been at least one class action suit filed in
Missouri.

The company hired an outside vendor to perform a review of its
systems and only thereafter learned it had been host to malignant
computer code secretly recording customers' credit and debit card
numbers, Mr. Millar said on a website he set up concerning the
class action.

Mr. Millar claims the company violated a federal law in allowing
the hacking to occur.

"Perhaps instead of an 'extensive review' after the fact, it
should have done a better job safeguarding its customers'
financial information.  That is called negligence and is also a
violation of federal law," the attorney said.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires the proper disposal or
transfer of consumer information. Consumer information is defined
as any record about an individual that is a consumer report or
derived from a consumer report.

The purpose of the FCRA is to reduce the risk of consumer fraud in
the disposal or transfer of this information.  A company violates
the FCRA when it does not take reasonable measures to protect
against unauthorized access to consumer information.

"That is exactly what this lawsuit alleges, and that is what
Schnucks failed, either deliberately or negligently, to do," Mr.
Millar said.

"We've worked hard to provide a secure transaction environment for
our customers, and today I make a personal pledge to you that we
will be relentless in maintaining the security of our payment
processing system. We expect that the actions we have taken and
will take in the future will send a clear signal that our
customers may continue to trust us," company Chairman and CEO
Scott Schnuck said.

According to The Telegraph, Mr. Schnuck said the company has
worked with its payment processor to make sure all potentially
affected card numbers are sent to the credit card companies, so
that they may continue sending alerts to the issuing banks. Those
banks then will be able to take steps to protect their
cardholders, such as adding enhanced transaction monitoring or
reissuing a new card. Many banks already have taken these steps.

"Customers have asked me if it is safe to shop at Schnucks,"
Mr. Schnuck said.  "Yes, we believe it is, and we will work hard
to keep it that way."

Schnucks has created a dedicated call center for customers if they
have additional questions about what happened and steps they can
take to protect themselves.  Please call (888) 414-8022, Monday
through Friday, 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

Schnucks provided the U.S. Secret Service and FBI with information
about the methods and tools used by the attacker and has worked
and will continue to partner with law enforcement to apprehend
those responsible.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Defends Suits Alleging Environmental Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is defending itself from legal and
governmental proceedings and investigations alleging environmental
claims, according to the Company's March 20, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended February 2, 2013.

The Company is subject to various legal and governmental
proceedings and investigations, including some involving the
practices and procedures in the Company's more highly regulated
businesses and many involving litigation incidental to those and
other businesses.  Some matters contain class action allegations,
environmental and asbestos exposure allegations and other
consumer-based, regulatory or qui tam claims, each of which may
seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims (potentially
in large amounts), as well as other types of relief.

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

Because litigation outcomes are inherently unpredictable, the
Company's evaluation of legal proceedings often involves a series
of complex assessments by management about future events and can
rely heavily on estimates and assumptions.  If the assessments
indicate that loss contingencies that could be material to any one
of the Company's financial statements are not probable, but are
reasonably possible, or are probable, but cannot be estimated,
then the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingencies,
together with an estimate of the range of possible loss or a
statement that such loss is not reasonably estimable.  While the
consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently
determinable, and an estimate of the probable and reasonably
possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued for
such proceedings cannot be reasonably made, an adverse outcome
from such proceedings could have a material effect on the
Company's earnings in any given reporting period.  However, in the
opinion of the Company's management, after consulting with legal
counsel, and taking into account insurance and reserves, the
ultimate liability related to current outstanding matters is not
expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial
position, liquidity or capital resources.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is
the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck
and Co.  Holdings was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in
connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears in 2005.  The
Hoffman Estates, Illinois-based Company is an integrated retailer
operating a national network of stores in the U.S. and in Canada,
and a number of Web sites under the sears.com and kmart.com
banners.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Defends Wage and Hour Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself against wage
and hour class action lawsuits, according to the Company's March
20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended February 2, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in several lawsuits containing class or
collective action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current
and former hourly and salaried associates who allege violations of
various wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining to
alleged misclassification of certain of the Company's employees
and the failure to pay overtime and/or the failure to pay for
missed meal and rest periods.  The complaints generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.
Further, certain of these proceedings are in jurisdictions with
reputations for aggressive application of laws and procedures
against corporate defendants.  The Company also is a defendant in
several putative or certified class action lawsuits in California
relating to alleged failure to comply with California laws
pertaining to certain operational, marketing and payroll
practices.  The California laws alleged to have been violated in
each of these lawsuits provide the potential for significant
statutory penalties.  At this time, the Company says it is not
able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably
estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits.

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

Because litigation outcomes are inherently unpredictable, the
Company's evaluation of legal proceedings often involves a series
of complex assessments by management about future events and can
rely heavily on estimates and assumptions.  If the assessments
indicate that loss contingencies that could be material to any one
of the Company's financial statements are not probable, but are
reasonably possible, or are probable, but cannot be estimated,
then the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingencies,
together with an estimate of the range of possible loss or a
statement that such loss is not reasonably estimable.  While the
consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently
determinable, and an estimate of the probable and reasonably
possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued for
such proceedings cannot be reasonably made, an adverse outcome
from such proceedings could have a material effect on the
Company's earnings in any given reporting period.  However, in the
opinion of the Company's management, after consulting with legal
counsel, and taking into account insurance and reserves, the
ultimate liability related to current outstanding matters is not
expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial
position, liquidity or capital resources.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is
the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck
and Co.  Holdings was formed as a Delaware corporation in 2004 in
connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears in 2005.  The
Hoffman Estates, Illinois-based Company is an integrated retailer
operating a national network of stores in the U.S. and in Canada,
and a number of Web sites under the sears.com and kmart.com
banners.


SOULCYCLE: Former Instructor Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thompson Wigdor LLP on May 3 disclosed that Nick Oram, who
recently appeared on Nightline on behalf of SoulCycle and who is a
former SoulCycle master instructor, filed a class action on May 3
in the Southern District of New York alleging that he and other
SoulCycle instructors were not paid consistent with New York and
California laws.  SoulCycle has built its reputation by providing
what it describes as the "best instructors and staff, trained to
deliver unique services and personal attention to all levels of
riders."  However, as detailed in the complaint, SoulCycle only
compensates these instructors for the time spent teaching their
classes, and has failed to compensate them for numerous hours
spent in training, preparing for classes, developing routines,
compiling playlists, communicating with customers, attending
meetings, leading special event classes and engaging in marketing.

As the complaint alleges, SoulCycle's unlawful wage practices are
consistent with its mistreatment of customers as SoulCycle does
not provide any reimbursement to customers who are unable to
attend classes they sign up for (unless they cancel the class by
5PM the night before), even when SoulCycle is able to re-sell the
vacant bike spot.  As a result, SoulCycle very often generates
revenue from classes at a rate that exceeds the total number of
bikes in a studio, to the detriment of its customers.

As the complaint alleges, despite the dozens of hours per week
SoulCycle instructors are required to work above and beyond the
time instructing a class, SoulCycle only compensates these
instructors for only the approximately 45 grueling minutes during
which each class is taught.  Mr. Oram stated that, "It is my goal
in this lawsuit to ensure that SoulCycle pays all of the hard
working and dedicated instructors what they deserve and
compensates them fairly for all hours worked."

Douglas H. Wigdor, a partner at Thompson Wigdor LLP declared,
"This is yet another example of a company so-focused on profits
that it disregards the wage and hour laws that are designed to
protect hard working and dedicated employees such as Mr. Oram and
his colleagues."

The case is entitled Nick Oram v. Soul Cycle LLC et al, Case No.
13 CV 2976, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Additional information about the
case can be obtained from and all inquiries may be directed to
Douglas H. Wigdor at the offices of Thompson Wigdor LLP in New
York, New York at (212) 257-6800.

                     About Thompson Wigdor:

Thompson Wigdor LLP -- http://www.thompsonwigdor.com-- is a law
firm specializing in high-profile employment litigation.  They can
be reached at (212) 257-6800 or twinfo@thompsonwigdor.com


STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------
GlossyNews.com reports that New York Attorney Tony Girbaldi has
filed a class action suit against State Farm Insurance for
claiming that reciting their company jingle would bring an instant
representative followed by mystic gain and benefits.

State Farm customer Sheila Potekin said her car was attacked by a
herd of wild yaks while at a nature preserve and no one responded
when she recited the jingle.

"The ad I saw recently showed a couple of guys in a similar
situation and a representative appeared and zapped them into his
office. My car was destroyed and I had to be rescued by park
personnel who were not affiliated with State Farm", she stated.

Another State Farm customer Irving Pelter said he was driving
recklessly around a hairpin turn.  As he saw his vehicle going out
of control he confidently sang, "Like a good neighbor State Farm
is there".  Instead of a representative appearing, Mr. Pelter's
car continued it's precipitous plunge resulting in severe
injuries.

"I even sang the jingle after I crashed", Mr. Pelter lamented.
"Nothing.  No representative.  No magical event.  Nothing like the
commercials".

Mr. Pelter said he did manage to reach a representative but had to
wait until he was on the phone in the hospital.  When asked why he
didn't appear at his moment of need the representative simply said
that is an ad gimmick and not to be taken literally.

"Then they raised my premium because of the accident.  It just
ain't fair", Mr. Pelter continued.

Most State Farm employees refused to be interviewed because of the
pending litigation but one employee did speak on condition of
anonymity. "It's just a totally stupid commercial.  And unless
you're buying wrong we won't even save you any money!" she
claimed.

Attorney Girbaldi claims he is seeking $1.2 billion to cover all
the people who have State Farm yet have not benefited from the
jingle.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits 2013 Trial Setting in Suit vs. Officers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. said in its March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012, that it awaits a trial setting in 2013 in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against its officers.

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of the Company's current and former
officers (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries).  The
lawsuits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan
Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2007,
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class
action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's
current officers (but not against the Company or its
subsidiaries).  The lawsuit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's bonds between March 27, 2008, and
March 30, 2009, inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones
case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be
consolidated with the cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are
virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
condition.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange
Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for
litigation expenses.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four
cases have been consolidated into one court in the Northern
District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs'
attorney have been selected ("Buettgen" case).  On April 12, 2010,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen
complaint.  On August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an
opinion, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On May
19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a
class.  Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
the Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order.  Discovery has commenced.  On September 24,
2012, the Company defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking a complete dismissal which was denied on February 20,
2013.

The Company awaits a trial setting in 2013.  The Company plans to
honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Appellate Ruling in ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court decision in an appeal from the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
Company's March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of the Company's current
and former officers, directors and members of the Company's
employee benefits committee ("EBC").  The complaint attempts to
recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were
allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA by the defendants in administrating the plans from November
17, 2006 to March 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that: (i) the
defendants wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc
common stock, (ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations
regarding the Company's financial performance and condition, (iii)
the defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants
mismanaged the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached
their duty to monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  At this time, a class has
not been certified.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on June 22, 2010.  On March 16, 2011, the court granted
the Company defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint;
however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint.  The
Company defendants have filed another motion to dismiss the new
complaint.  On March 15, 2012, the court granted the Company
defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been completed.  Oral argument
was held on March 7, 2013, and the Company awaits the ruling of
the court.

The Company says it plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Order in Suit Over Benefit Plan Amendments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a counterclaim in its class action lawsuit relating to
amendments in its benefit plans, according to the Company's
March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 26, 2012, the Company filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, where the Company seeks a declaratory judgment
concerning the Company's right to enact several amendments that
were recently made to its retiree health and welfare benefit
plans, and more generally the Company's right to modify, amend or
terminate these plans.  Although the court initially consolidated
this case with a November 2009 case commenced by three former Bell
retirees over the Company's employee benefits committee, it later
reversed itself and kept the case separate.  Several of the
defendants have filed motions to dismiss as well as a
counterclaim.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim.  The Company awaits the order of the court.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Faces Companion Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is facing another lawsuit related to a collective
action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the Company's March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against the Company, all
its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the
former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The complaint
alleges that the Company improperly calculated the rate of pay
when it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees.  On July 29,
2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In
response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that
the individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims for unpaid
overtime.  Subsequently, the Company amended its motion to dismiss
in light of the new allegations.  On October 25, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective
action and to issue notice.  On March 29, 2012, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion
to conditionally certify the class.  The Company's motion seeking
permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied
and a notice has been sent to the Company's former and current
employees.  The time for opting into the class has expired.  The
plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a
companion case with the same allegations.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Has Settled Discrimination Claim for Nominal Amt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. disclosed in its March 21, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that it has settled for a nominal amount
a discrimination claim made by a former employee.

On April 26, 2011, the Company received a letter from the
Philadelphia Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on
behalf of a former employee indicating that the EEOC was
conducting an investigation for a possible nationwide class claim.
The former employee was terminated after failing to memorize a
sales pitch.  The EEOC alleges that the Company may have
systematically discriminated against older employees and employees
with disabilities by requiring them to memorize a sales pitch.
The Company is cooperating with the agency and has provided the
agency with responsive documents requested in the EEOC's original
request.  On August 1, 2012, the EEOC made a determination only
with respect to the former employee, dropping their pursuit of any
class claim.  The Company has since settled that individual claim
for a nominal amount.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Judgment Bids in Suit vs. EBC Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon Communications Inc. employee benefits committee and
pension plans and SuperMedia Inc.'s employee benefits committee
("EBC") and pension plans.  All three named plaintiffs are
receiving the single life monthly annuity pension benefits.  All
complain that Verizon transferred them against their will from the
Verizon pension plans to the Company pension plans at or near the
Company's spin-off from Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both
the Verizon and Company defendants failed to provide requested
plan documents, which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory
penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act
("ERISA"); that both the Verizon and Company defendants breached
their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan
information; and other class action counts aimed solely at the
Verizon defendants.  The plaintiffs seek class action status,
statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee
transfers.  The Company defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the entire complaint on March 10, 2010.  On October 18, 2010, the
court ruled on the pending motion dismissing all the claims
against the Company pension plans and all of the claims against
the Company's EBC relating to the production of documents and
statutory penalties for failure to produce same.  The only claims
remaining against the Company are procedural ERISA claims against
the Company's EBC.  On November 1, 2010, the Company's EBC filed
its answer to the complaint.  On November 4, 2010, the Company's
EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two remaining procedural
ERISA claims against the EBC.  Pursuant to an agreed order, the
plaintiffs have obtained class certification against the Verizon
defendants and discovery has commenced.  After obtaining
permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed another amendment
to the complaint, alleging a new count against the Company's EBC.
The Company's EBC filed another motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and have filed a summary judgment motion before the
deadline set by the scheduling order.  On March 26, 2012, the
court denied the Company's EBC's motion to dismiss.  The parties'
summary judgments remain pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 21, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company says it plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010.


SURLY BIKES: Recalls 975 Pugsley Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Surly Bikes, of Bloomington, Minnesota, a wholly-owned
brand of Quality Bicycle Products, Inc.; and manufacturer, Aprebic
Industry Co. Ltd., of Taiwan, announced a voluntary recall of
about 975 Surly Pugsley Bicycle Forks.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle fork can bend above the disc brake mount, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

Surly Bikes has received one report of a fork bending above the
disc brake mount.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Surly Pugsley 100 mm and 135 mm bicycle forks
made of tubular chromoly steel.  "Surly" is printed on both legs
of the fork.  "Pugsley" is printed on the fork's packaging and on
the frame of bikes with the recalled forks.  Surly Pugsley 100 mm
bicycle forks were sold individually only.  They are black, have
triple water bottle mounts on each side, rack/fender mounts on the
top and bottom and have date code 2012 03 20 stamped on the
steerer tube.  Surly Pugsley 135 mm bicycle forks were sold
individually and as part of 2013 model year complete bicycles.
The 135 mm forks are black, yellow or red and are stamped with
date code 2012 06 19 on the steerer tube.  Model number FK3175,
FK3181 or FK0706 is printed on the packaging for forks sold
individually.  Surly Pugsley bicycle models FM3110-3114, FM3175-
79, BK3110-14 and BK3175-79 were sold with the recalled forks as
original equipment.  The bicycle's model number is printed on the
bicycle's packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/fNNTzG

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
bicycle stores nationwide and on various websites from May 2012
through February 2013 for about $100 individually or on Surly
Pugsley bicycles for about $1,750.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled Surly bicycle fork and contact a Surly dealer for a free
inspection and replacement or a full refund.  Surly Bikes may be
reached toll-free at (877) 946-9333 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.surlybikes.com/and click on the Safety Recall button
for more information.


TELEFONICA BRASIL: Sao Paulo Prosecutor Suit's Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Prosecutor Office of the State of Sao Paulo commenced a
class action lawsuit claiming moral and property damages suffered
by all consumers of telecommunication services from 2004 to 2009
due to the bad quality of service and failures of the
communications system.  The Public Prosecutors Office suggested a
total award against Telefonica Brasil S.A. of R$1 billion.  A
judgment was rendered on April 20, 2010, imposing the payment of
damages to all consumers who proved to be eligible for the award.
Alternatively, if clients do not prove themselves eligible in a
number compatible with the severity of the damage after a period
of one year, the judgment establishes that R$60 million should be
deposited in a special fund for protection of diffuse customer
interests (Fundo Especial de Defesa de Reparacao de Interesses
Difusos Lesados).

The Company says it is not possible to estimate how many consumers
may present themselves in this procedure nor the values to be
claimed by them.  The parties filled an appeal and the effects of
the sentence were suspended.  Despite the possible degree of risk,
no value amount was attributed to this action because currently
the Company is unable to calculate the total amount to be paid by
the Company in the event it loses and, as a result, the Company
has not recorded any provisions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 20, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Telefonica Brasil S.A. -- http://www.telefonica.com.br/ir/-- was
incorporated in 1998 in the Federative Republic of Brazil and is
headquartered in Sao Paulo.  The Company provides fixed-line
telecommunications services in the state of Sao Paulo under
concession agreements granted in 1998 by the Brazilian government
in connection with the restructuring and privatization of the
Telebras System.


TELEFONICA BRASIL: Still Defends Suits Related to SISTEL Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. continues to defend class action lawsuits
commenced by participants of the SISTEL plan, according to the
Company's March 20, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Before December 1999, the SISTEL (Fundacao Sistel de Seguridade
Social) plan, a multi-employer defined benefit plan that
supplements government-provided retirement benefits, covered the
employees of the former Telebras System and the Company was
contingently liable for all of the unfunded obligations of the
plan.  In January 2000, the Company and the other companies that
formerly belonged to the Telebras system agreed to divide the
existing SISTEL plan into 15 separate plans, resulting in the
creation of private plans covering those employees already
enrolled in the SISTEL plan.  In that moment, these new private
pension plans were still administered by SISTEL and have retained
the same terms and conditions of the SISTEL plan.  The division
was carried out so as to allocate liability among the companies
that formerly belonged to the Telebras system according to each
company's contributions with respect to its own employees.  Joint
liability among the SISTEL plan sponsors will continue with
respect to retired employees, who will necessarily remain members
of the SISTEL plans, called PBS plan.

At the time of the privatization, employees had the right to
maintain their rights and benefits in SISTEL.  Under the SISTEL
plan, the Company made monthly contributions to SISTEL equal to a
percentage of the salary of each employee who was a SISTEL member.
Each employee member also made a monthly contribution to SISTEL on
the basis of age and salary.  Pension benefits of members of
SISTEL vested by the same time their retirement benefits vested
under the government-provided retirement plan.  SISTEL operates
independently from the Company, and its assets and liabilities are
fully segregated from the Company.

Class actions filed by SISTEL Members Association in the State of
Sao Paulo, whereby SISTEL members in Sao Paulo State question the
changes made in the health care plan for retired employees (PAMA),
and that former conditions are restored.  The claim is still in
the evidentiary stage, and no decision was issued in any court
level.

The Company says the likelihood of loss in this proceeding was
deemed as possible by legal counsel.  The amount is not measurable
and the claims are uncertain due to their unenforceability, since
it would be necessary to restore the plan to its previous
conditions.

Telefonica Brasil S.A. -- http://www.telefonica.com.br/ir/-- was
incorporated in 1998 in the Federative Republic of Brazil and is
headquartered in Sao Paulo.  The Company provides fixed-line
telecommunications services in the state of Sao Paulo under
concession agreements granted in 1998 by the Brazilian government
in connection with the restructuring and privatization of the
Telebras System.


TIBOR'S GOURMET: Jons Marketplace Received Recalled Products
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Jons Marketplace's stores in Los Angeles
and Orange County received ready-to-eat smoked pork sausage
products that have been recalled by Tibor's Gourmet.

The FSIS says this 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/BSEoKG,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.


TORO CO: Recalls 3,760 Zero Turn Riding Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in conjunction with
Health Canada, and in cooperation with The Toro Co., of
Bloomington, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of about
3,700 Toro(R) Z Master(R) Riding Mowers in the United States of
America and 60 in Canada.  About 2,600 units were previously
recalled in the U.S. and 30 in Canada in November 2012.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The idler pulley can rub against the mower's fuel tank, posing a
fire hazard.

Toro has received six reports of incidents.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves 2012 and 2013 Toro Z Master Commercial 2000
Series ZRT riding mowers. The mowers are red and black.  "Toro"
and "2000 Series" are printed on the side and "Z Master
Commercial" on the front of the mowers.  When viewed from the
operator's seat, the model and serial numbers are on a metal plate
located at the front of the mower, below the seat, on the right-
hand side.  The following models and corresponding serial numbers
are included in this recall: model number 74141 with serial
numbers ranging from 312000101 to 312000784 and 313000101 to
313000364; model number 74143 with serial numbers ranging from
312000101 to 312000881 and 313000101 to 313000432; and model
number 74145 with serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to
312001178 and 313000101 to 313000443.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/xKBkdv

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Toro dealers nationwide from January 2012
through April 2013 for between $7,700 and $8,700.

Consumers should stop using the recalled mowers immediately and
contact a Toro dealer to schedule a free repair and/or to check if
the repair has already been made to the mower.  Toro has contacted
registered owners of the recalled mowers.  Toro may be reached
toll-free at (855) 493-0090, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.toro.com/and
click on Product Recall Information on the bottom right-hand side
of the page for more information.


TORONTO COMMUNITY: Settles Tenants' Class Action Over 2010 Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Vincent and Jessica McDiarmid, writing for Toronto Star,
report that after nearly three years, a class-action lawsuit
launched against Toronto Community Housing Corp. by about 600
tenants affected by a massive six-alarm blaze at 200 Wellesley
St. E. has been settled.

Lead plaintiff Jo-Anne Blair and defendants TCHC and its former
building operator, Greenwin Property Management, came to an
agreement on April 30 after a series of marathon mediation
sessions.  The parties aren't commenting on details of the deal,
which is to go before an Ontario Superior Court judge for final
approval June 18.

"What I can say is I am absolutely delighted by the settlement and
I think that the class members will be delighted with the
settlement as well," said lawyer Brian Shell, who represents Blair
and the other plaintiffs.

"I'm mainly delighted because the class members will hopefully
within a period of . . . a few months actually have the money that
they've been entitled to all along."

The fire, which caused just over C$1 million in damage, broke out
Sept. 24, 2010, in a unit on the 24th floor of the highrise,
sparked by a cigarette butt flicked from the balcony above.

In its report, the Ontario Fire Marshal noted that Stephen
Vassilev, the resident in the unit where the fire started, and
whom neighbours and investigators identified as a "hoarder,'' had
complained to TCHC on April 16, 2009, about the neighbor in the
unit above "throwing broken bottles and cigarette butts on to his
(Vassilev's) balcony."

The fire was a public relations disaster for TCHC, owner of the
public housing highrise, which later terminated Greenwin's
contract to operate the building.

More than 1,200 residents, many suffering physical and mental
health ailments, were displaced from their homes for weeks or
months.  Tenants complained of losing cherished belongings,
clothing, furniture and other items to the blaze.

TCHC quickly came forward with a compensation offer: a base amount
for property damage ranging from C$4,700 to C$6,900, depending on
unit size and duration of disruption, plus C$1,700 to C$1,900 for
each additional occupant.  Those who accepted had to agree not to
join the lawsuit or take further legal action.

Workers at a free legal clinic set up for residents staged a
shutdown in protest after the compensation offer.

Many tenants accepted the deal, but others held out for the class
action.

At one point Mr. Shell indicated a plaintiff in the civil suit
could be looking at C$25,000 to C$30,000 in compensation.

Mr. Shell said about 85 per cent of the claimants still live in
the building, though about five elderly plaintiffs died during the
legal process.  He said representing some of the "most vulnerable"
in the city has been instructive -- his legal team has translated
legal documents into about 20 languages.

"It's just a remarkably heterogeneous community, culturally,
ethnically and religiously and yet economically, it's relatively
similar: many people on various forms of disability, many people
who are old, or in poor shape emotionally," said Mr. Shell.  "It
is a very, very enlightening experience to be of assistance to
them."

In an interview Ms. Blair, the lead plaintiff, said she is
relieved a deal has been reached, satisfied with the outcome, and
believes the claimants are getting "a fair share," though the
money won't replace items she lost, such as family photos and
heirlooms from her deceased parents.  A full-blown trial would
have been traumatic for many of the claimants, she added.

Ms. Blair knows about trauma.  She lived in the unit diagonally
across from the one where the fire started and spent several hours
on her balcony waiting to be rescued by emergency crews.  She
relocated to a two-bedroom unit she shares with her daughter in a
lowrise building in Toronto's east end and hasn't stepped into a
highrise since the fire.  She won't live in one again.

"It's too nerve-wracking . . . I couldn't handle that," Ms. Blair
said, adding she sees a psychologist to deal with that stress and
the unsettling feeling she gets every time she hears sirens or
fire alarms.


UCI HOLDINGS: Defends Canadian Antitrust Suits vs. Champion
-----------------------------------------------------------
UCI Holdings Limited continues to defend a subsidiary against
antitrust class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to
the Company's March 20, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Starting in 2008, United Components, Inc. ("UCI"), and its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named as
defendants in numerous antitrust complaints originally filed in
courts around the country.  The complaints allege that several
defendant filter manufacturers engaged in price fixing for
aftermarket automotive filters in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and/or state law.  Some of these complaints are
putative class actions on behalf of all persons that purchased
aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, from
1999 to March 8, 2012.  Others are putative class actions on
behalf of all persons who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the defendants,
from 1999 to March 8, 2012.  The complaints seek treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's
fees.

On August 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, ("JPML"), transferred these cases to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On November 26, 2008, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  This complaint names Champion as
one of multiple defendants, but it does not name UCI.  The
complaint is a putative class action and alleges violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act in connection with the sale of light
duty (i.e., automotive and light truck) oil, air and fuel filters
for sale in the aftermarket.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek
treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and
attorney's fees.

On January 12, 2009, Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of
ten defendants in a related action filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported
class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters.
This case has been removed to federal court and transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.  On February 25, 2010, the California plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of
operators of service stations in California who indirectly
purchased for resale oil, air, transmission, and fuel filters from
defendants.

In 2008, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Florida issued Antitrust Civil Investigative Demands to Champion
and UCI requesting documents and information related to the sale
of oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.  On April 16, 2009,
the Florida Attorney General filed a complaint against Champion
and eight other defendants in the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and Florida law related to the sale of aftermarket filters.  The
complaint asserts direct and indirect purchaser claims on behalf
of Florida governmental entities and Florida consumers.  It seeks
treble damages, penalties, fees, costs and an injunction.  The
Florida Attorney General action is being coordinated with the rest
of the filters cases pending in the Northern District of Illinois.

On December 21, 2009, William G. Burch filed a related complaint
under seal in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma against Champion and other defendants on
behalf of the United States as a qui tam relator pursuant to the
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3729, et seq.  On June 10,
2010, the United States filed a Notice of the United States'
Election to Decline Intervention.  On June 17, 2010, the court
ordered the complaint unsealed and directed Mr. Burch to serve it
on the defendants which he has done.  The JPML transferred this
action to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings with the other aftermarket filters matters
pending there.  Mr. Burch filed a First Amended complaint there on
November 24, 2010, raising claims under the federal False Claims
Act, and similar acts of nineteen states and the District of
Columbia.  On November 18, 2011, the parties stipulated to
dismissal of this action with prejudice as to future complaints by
Mr. Burch as a relator.  However, the stipulation of dismissal was
without prejudice to the rights of the United States to bring an
action under the False Claims Act on its own behalf.

On August 9, 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a
related complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Champion and eight other
defendants on behalf of a purported class of indirect aftermarket
filter purchasers consisting of towns, counties, villages, police,
fire and sanitation departments and municipalities throughout the
United States.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and New York's Donnelly Act.  The JPML transferred
this case to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.  On April 5, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation dismissing this action without prejudice.

On February 24, 2011, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Fourth Amended Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  This
complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it
does not name UCI.  The complaint is a putative class action and
alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations
of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition
laws related to the sale of replacement motor vehicle oil, fuel
and engine air filters.  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek
treble damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an
injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits,
costs and attorneys' fees.  Champion's answer to the third amended
complaint was filed on March 25, 2011.

On April 14, 2011, the court entered a 90-day stay of all
proceedings in all actions consolidated in the Northern District
of Illinois by the JPML.  The parties to these consolidated
actions jointly requested this stay in light of a pending criminal
investigation by the United States Attorney's Office of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania into evidence and statements
related to William G. Burch.  On June 21, 2011, the United States
Attorney's Office of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged
William G. Burch with knowingly and willfully making false and
fraudulent statements to the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice with the intent to impede the Antitrust Division's
investigation.  On June 29, 2011, William G. Burch pleaded guilty
to these charges.

On July 14, 2011, at the request of the parties to the
consolidated actions, the court extended the stay until
August 23, 2011.  On August 17, 2011, Champion and other
defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to exclude from
evidence in the consolidated proceedings certain evidence and
testimony that the class action and Florida plaintiffs obtained
from William G. Burch.  At a hearing on August 23, 2011, the court
continued the stay pending briefing on defendants' motions.
Following additional briefing on the motions to exclude this
evidence and testimony by all parties, at a hearing on
October 12, 2011, the court took the motions under advisement and
continued the stay until a hearing on all motions to be held on
January 20, 2012.

On January 20, 2012, the court denied the pending motions without
prejudice and lifted the stay.  On February 3, 2012, the court
issued a scheduling order under which discovery as to the
conspiracy element of the plaintiffs' claims will close on October
31, 2012.

On February 9, 2012, the parties announced that Champion and two
other defendants had reached an agreement in principle with all
plaintiffs to settle the remaining actions.  On March 8, 2012, the
parties executed a settlement agreement.  On April 24, 2012, the
court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlements
with each of the putative classes.  On July 31, 2012, pursuant to
the terms of the settlement, the court dismissed with prejudice
the State of Florida's claims against Champion.  On October 10,
2012, and October 25, 2012, the court entered orders approving the
settlements with the direct purchaser and the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs, respectively, certifying the settlement classes and
dismissing the actions with prejudice.  The periods for appeal of
these orders expired on November 2, 2012, and November 26, 2012,
respectively, without any notice of appeal having been filed.

On September 28, 2012, the court amended its preliminary approval
of the gas retailer plaintiffs' settlement to extend the deadline
for mailing the notice to potential class members from June 19,
2012, to October 3, 2012, and extended the deadline for objections
to or requests for exclusion from the proposed settlement from
August 3, 2012, to November 9, 2012.  On
November 28, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
settlement, certifying the settlement class and dismissing the
action with prejudice.  The period for appeal of this order
expired on December 28, 2012, without any notice of appeal having
been filed.

Champion, but not UCI, was also named as one of five defendants in
a class action filed in Quebec, Canada, in 2008.  This action
alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act
and violations of the obligation to act in good faith related to
the sale of aftermarket filters.  The plaintiff seeks joint and
several liability against the five defendants in the amount of
CAD5 million in compensatory damages and CAD1 million in punitive
damages.  The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the
matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet
been ruled on.

Champion, but not UCI, was also named as one of 14 defendants in a
class action filed in Ontario, Canada, in 2008.  This action
alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic
interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters.  The
plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of CAD150 million in general damages and
CAD15 million in punitive damages.  The plaintiff is also seeking
authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding,
which motion has not yet been ruled on.

On June 10, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Washington issued an Antitrust Civil Investigative Demand to
Champion requesting documents and information related to the sale
of oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.  Champion has been
informed by the Attorney General's office that the investigation
has been closed.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ")
investigated the allegations raised in these lawsuits and certain
current and former employees of the defendants, including
Champion, testified pursuant to subpoenas.  On January 21, 2010,
the DOJ sent a letter to counsel for Champion stating that "the
Antitrust Division's investigation into possible collusion in the
replacement auto filters industry is now officially closed."

During the Successor year ended December 31, 2012, the Company
incurred post-trial costs of $1.2 million.  During the fourth
quarter of 2011, the Company recorded a provision of $7.8 million
related to the February 9, 2012 settlement agreement.  During the
Successor year ended December 31, 2011, the Predecessor period
January 1, 2011, through January 25, 2011, and the Predecessor
year ended December 31, 2010, the Company incurred $3.9 million,
$0.8 million and $7.2 million, respectively, defending against
these claims.  These amounts are included in "Antitrust litigation
costs" in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income
(loss) included elsewhere in this annual report.

UCI Holdings Limited is a New Zealand limited liability company
headquartered in Auckland that was incorporated in 2010 for the
purpose of consummating the acquisition of UCI International, Inc.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, is a supplier to the light
and heavy-duty vehicle aftermarket for replacement parts,
supplying a broad range of filtration, fuel delivery systems,
vehicle electronics and cooling systems products.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lab Retirees Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reports that Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory retirees are contemplating a change in strategy in
their legal effort to force the University of California to return
them to its health care programs.

Hoping to increase pressure on UC management, and mindful of the
continuing challenge of raising funds for protracted legal
battles, the UC Livermore Retirees Group is exploring the
possibility of changing its lawsuit to a class action.

A class action suit could force the University to "pay more
attention" to retiree claims because of the potential for large
damages, according to the leader of the Retirees Group, Joe Requa.
In an interview, he said he considers the change "likely, (but)
not certain."

Mr. Requa supposed that the class might be something like all LLNL
retirees who had once qualified for UC health care.

For decades, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was operated
by the University of California, so its employees were UC
employees, with all the University's benefits.

Retirees were removed from the UC health care system starting in
2008, after the U.S. Department of Energy terminated the
University's role as the Laboratory's sole manager.  Under the
current arrangement, the Laboratory is managed by a for-profit
consortium, of which the University is one partner.

Many retirees have said that they have found the consortium's
health care programs confusing, unreliable and in some cases much
more expensive than the suite of programs that the University
offered to its retirees in the past.  Many had made career
decisions based on the belief that they would always be University
retirees with access to UC health care programs.

Several hundred retirees organized the UC Livermore Retirees
Group, established a legal fund and, in 2010, filed suit in
Superior Court in Oakland.  Although recent court rulings make it
clear that the retirees have standing to sue and their case may be
heard, the retirees are concerned that there may be little
motivation for UC to pay much attention to them.

It appears to be "in UC's best interest to drag things out as long
as possible, since they are saving money by doing so and will not
have to pay any damages if they lose," said Mr. Requa.

"By going to a class action, we can ask for reinstatement (to UC
health programs) and accrued damages," he added.

More than 90 percent of Retiree Group members recently voted for
converting to class-action.  The Group's Legal Defense Panel
agreed to make the change.  Next steps are to submit a petition to
the court and to define the class affected in a way that the court
can approve.

Jay Davis, a former associate director at the laboratory and one
of four retiree plaintiffs in the present lawsuit, agreed that
moving to a class action is appropriate.  "More than the four
plaintiffs are affected," he pointed out.

Like Mr. Requa, he is concerned with the snail-like pace of legal
action and hopes that a class action will speed things up.  The
University has a track record of trying "to exhaust the
plaintiff's resources" by moving slowly, he said.  He thinks that
the courts have shown some impatience with these go-slow tactics.
Davis is confident that the retirees should be able "to outlast
them" and eventually prevail.

In the meantime, fund-raising to support the legal activities
remains a serious challenge for the grassroots Retiree Group.
Mr. Requa referred to funding as "my primary worry at this point."
In an email explaining the situation to members of the retiree
organization, he said that further activity converting to class-
action converting to and pursuing a class-action suit would cost
about $75,000.

The Retirees Group already had $25,000 on hand and has raised an
additional $33,000 in recent weeks, he said.  A gap remains.  The
group continues to solicit funds from supporters.

Those wishing to contribute can send to the UCLRG Legal Defense
Fund, c/o B. Sokoloski, 1144 Xavier Way, Livermore 94550.


VISA INC: Merchant Groups Post Swipe-Fee Notices to Avoid Sanction
------------------------------------------------------------------
CSP Daily News reports that facing the threat of a contempt of
court charge, merchant groups opposed to the pending $7.25 billion
class-action settlement involving Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc.
over interchange or "swipe" fees are complying with a federal
judge's ruling to post notices on their websites indicating that
some of the information posted there on the issue may be
misleading.

Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn in mid-
April said that merchant groups involved in the case must correct
information on websites intended to encourage retailer opposition
to the class-action settlement.

In late April, he wrote in a court order that the sites continue
"to obfuscate the important differences between opting out and
objecting" to the settlement and "[fail] to adequately inform a
visitor to the site of the consequences of opting out."  He
ordered them to post notices to that effect.

As reported in a Raymond James/CSP Daily News Flash on May 2,
several industry associations with a stake in the issue --
including NACS, the National Grocers Association, the National
Community Pharmacists Association and the National Cooperative
Grocers Association, posted this or a similarly worded notice on
their sites:

"United States District Court Judge John Gleeson, who is presiding
over In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, has ruled that this website and others like
it posted certain information regarding the settlement of that
case that was misleading.  Additional information as to class
members' rights and options under the settlement is available at
www.paymentcardsettlement.com."

"The notice was posted to comply with the order from the judge and
it went up shortly after we received that order," NACS
spokesperson Jeff Lenard told CSP Daily News.  "It will stay up as
long as required by the court."

MerchantsObject.com, a website created to oppose the settlement
and to disseminate information supporting that view, posted this
notice:

"Advisory: Judge Gleeson, the United States District Court Judge
presiding over In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, has determined that certain
information regarding the settlement previously displayed on this
website, and others like it, was misleading.

"As a result, Judge Gleeson has ordered that this website post
this advisory.  This is not the Court-approved Case Website.  The
Court is concerned, for example, that some class members who
visited this site may not have fully understood their rights with
regard to the proposed settlement and therefore may have made
decisions without complete information.  For information such as
the Court-approved Notice, which provides a detailed description
of the proposed settlement and class members' rights and options
in connection with the proposed settlement, please visit:
www.paymentcardsettlement.com.  Judge Gleeson recommends that you
visit that site before deciding what action, if any, you wish to
take regarding the settlement.  You may also want to contact the
attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the interests of the
Class."

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

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

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

The deal has sparked opposition from large merchants such as Wal-
Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc., as well as
several trade groups that are named plaintiffs in the litigation.
They argue the deal grants overly broad releases from future
litigation to Visa and MasterCard and will not prevent interchange
fees from rising in the future.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mislabeled Curried and Vegan Chicken Salad
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling bulk curried chicken salad and
bulk vegan curried chick'n salad because in some stores these
items may have been sold with reversed labels causing undeclared
soy and egg allergens.  Due to the label mix-up, allergens were
undeclared; the vegan chick'n salad contains soy, and the curried
chicken salad contains egg.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy or eggs
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The products were for sale on 5/7/13 and 5/8/13.  Pictures of the
recalled products and labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm351567.htm

The curried chicken salad and the vegan curried chick'n salad were
sold in the cold salad bars at the following 15 Whole Foods Market
store locations:

   * Darien, Connecticut
   * Fairfield, Connecticut
   * West Hartford, Connecticut
   * Portland, Maine
   * Framingham, Massachusetts
   * Fresh Pond in Cambridge, Massachusetts
   * Milburn-Union, New Jersey
   * Montclair, New Jersey
   * Rose City-Madison, New Jersey
   * West Orange, New Jersey
   * Jericho, New York
   * Lake Grove, New York
   * Manhasset, New York
   * Columbus Circle in New York City
   * Upper West Side in New York City

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Signage is posted in affected Whole Foods Market stores to notify
customers of this recall, and all affected product has been
removed from the salad bar.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
may return it to the store for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions should contact their local store or call 617-492-5500
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time.


XYMOGEN: Recalls artriphen Over Undeclared Milk & Soy
-----------------------------------------------------
Nutraceutical company XYMOGEN in Orlando, Florida, is recalling
artriphen, a product recommended for the support of healthy joint
function, because it contains traces of the undeclared allergens
soy and milk.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to either
allergen run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.  Although there have been
no reported allergic reactions or any adverse events in connection
with the product to date, consumers are urged to return this
product for a full refund.

XYMOGEN learned that artriphen might contain the two allergens and
immediately discontinued sale of the product.  XYMOGEN then had a
third-party laboratory test the product to confirm the presence of
the allergens.

"In the past, our contract manufacturing partners applied labels
to our products, thus the weight of responsibility on what
allergens were or were not declared rested with them as the party
handling the raw materials," said Brian Blackburn, XYMOGEN'S
president and CEO.  "Making the big leap of taking on your own
manufacturing dramatically shifts the weight.  As a result, we
have been, since day one, stringently verifying the presence or
absence of allergens in raw materials we purchase, along with bulk
items or finished products received from third-party
manufacturers, as part of our due diligence to ensure product
safety and compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations."

XYMOGEN discovered the allergens were not included in the
product's labeling while preparing to buy artriphen in bulk and
then label and package it for the first time at its new 136,000-
square-foot manufacturing facility and headquarters in Orlando.

"We were afraid the manufacturer had been fraudulently labeling
the product after we received from them our mandatory allergen
checklist, indicating both allergens as present in the formula,"
Blackburn said.  "After questioning them on this discovery, we
were able to confirm this was the case and that we had been
dealing with a company that was clearly incompetent of segregating
allergenic raw materials and communicating their presence in
customer's formulas.  If it were not for XYMOGEN's experienced and
diligent team members that handle these processes, and our overall
team's commitment to the utmost quality, this serious error may
have remained undiscovered."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations on
dietary manufacturing, packaging and distribution require
manufactures to disclose any of eight identified allergens in the
labeling and marketing of products.

In addition to discontinuing the sale of artriphen, XYMOGEN is
phasing out two other products, coolsens(TM) and dolorox(TM),
provided by the same company, neither of which has any known
safety concerns.

artriphen was available in quantities of either 90 or 180
capsules.  Picture of the recalled products' label is available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm351314.htm

                          About XYMOGEN

XYMOGEN, a family-owned, health sciences company with headquarters
in Orlando, Florida, has been providing high-quality dietary
supplements to licensed health care practitioners for more than a
quarter century.

The nutraceutical company has introduced numerous innovations to
the functional medicine community; its Medical Board of Advisors
consists of clinical practitioners who represent a broad range of
specialties.

XYMOGEN's strength as a company was reinforced in 2007, 2008,
2010, 2011 and 2012 when it was recognized by Inc. Magazine as one
of the 5,000 fastest-growing private companies in America.

The Company's 136,000-square-foot manufacturing facility is GMP
(good manufacturing practices) and GMP for Sport Athletic Banned
Substances Program registered by NSF International.

More information is available at http://www.xymogen.com/

Please email pr@xymogen.com for comments or inquiries.


* French Government to Allow Class Actions Against Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the French government said on May 2 it would
allow class action lawsuits against companies for mis-selling and
over-charging, part of a package to boost consumer rights after
recent scandals including the mislabeling of horsemeat.

The new rules stop short of health and environmental matters which
have yielded huge settlements in the United States, and which the
law may be revised to cover.

Like his conservative predecessors, Socialist President Francois
Hollande had promised since his 2012 election campaign to
introduce class action, and pressure on consumers has added
impetus.  Household spending, the traditional source of growth in
the euro zone's No. 2 economy, is falling alongside soaring
unemployment.

Presenting the package, Consumer Affairs Minister Benoit Hamon
said the threat of such suits would act as a "weapon of mass
dissuasion" for companies in conflicts with consumers.

"It will push a lot of companies to seek mediation with consumers
rather than settle conflicts in court," he said.

Under the legislation, fines for companies found guilty of fraud
could reach 10 percent of their sales.

Corporate fraud has become a sensitive issue after French meat
processors were found to be at the center of a Europe-wide scandal
over mislabeled frozen meals containing horsemeat.

Another part of the package of legislation, aimed at encouraging
more competition between insurers, allows policyholders to cancel
contracts more easily after one year.

The package would also boost consumers rights over purchases on
the Internet, and give them powers to contest clauses in contracts
deemed by a judge to be abusive.

In an effort to discourage people getting saddled with huge
consumer debts, new law also requires lenders offer fixed terms on
loans for purchases more than 1,000 euros ($1,300).  Fixed-term
loans charge lower rates than open-ended credit lines.

Big changes to the legislation are unlikely as Hollande's
government enjoys a majority in parliament where the bill is due
to be presented in June.

Germany, Britain and about 13 other European Union countries allow
class action lawsuits.

According to Testosterone Pit's Wolf Richter, Mr. Hamon said "We
want a quick procedure that would allow consumers to obtain
compensation down to the euro for damages they suffered,"  He
added, perhaps tongue in cheek, that the bill was intended to give
consumers "a little purchasing power again."

French consumers, if they get the short end of the stick, have in
some cases no legal way of addressing the problem.  There are
"some holes in the protection of consumers," Mr. Hamon admitted,
"particularly in the possibility of being compensated for economic
damages."  He listed consumer contracts and anti-competitive
practices.

"For 20 to 30 years, we have experienced a considerable
liberalization of the European market but consumer rights have not
evolved at the same pace," he said.  The key measure in the
legislation is the possibility of bringing "actions de groupe" --
class-action lawsuits.

In France, the "actions de groupe" provisions have been broadsided
by lobbyists. Critics pointed their fingers at the abuses and
excesses of the American model.  So the law has been watered down
with "safeguards," Minister Hamon reassured his leery compatriots
dreading the Americanization of their legal system.  Only the 16
approved consumer associations could initiate actions de groupe,
he said.  He pointed out the evils of the American system: "Many
people want to make money on the backs of consumers," but "we want
to avoid that," he said.

There are other consumer protection goodies in the bill, and Hamon
went through some of them.  It would extend the period for being
able to rescind an online purchase from seven days to 14 days.
The law would also allow consumers to cancel multi-risk home
insurance any time after the first year.  Currently, these
policies can only be canceled on their anniversary date, and it
must be requested a month in advance.  People don't remember the
date, miss the deadline, then watch their premiums go up for
another year. Premiums have risen three times faster than the rate
of inflation over the past three years, he said.  With consumers
being able to cancel policies more freely, competitions would keep
prices in check. And consumers would gain in purchasing power.

Other provisions in the law are aimed at cartels.  Through their
collusion, consumers might end up paying "20% more than what they
should pay," he said.  And there is nothing like a good action de
groupe by a million aggrieved French consumers represented by a
specialized law firm to hound companies into submission and obtain
compensation -- or so they imagine.

But if actions de groupe are handled the all-American way, they
won't be "a quick procedure that would allow consumers to obtain
compensation down to the euro for damages they suffered," as he'd
suggested. Instead, they will take years, make lawyers rich,
change corporate behavior only minimally if at all, and leave
consumers with dubious coupons and checks for EUR1.37.


* Rust Consulting Ordered to Correct Settlement Check Errors
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, writing for DealBook,
report that three weeks after checks sent to homeowners as
compensation for foreclosure abuses were rejected for insufficient
funds, the consulting firm at the center of the mishap erred
again: a fresh round of checks was written for the wrong amounts.

In recent days, according to officials briefed on the matter, Rust
Consulting issued nearly 100,000 checks for less than the
homeowners were owed.  The mistake potentially cheated consumers
out of millions of dollars they were owed under a deal reached
between the government and the nation's biggest banks.

Federal regulators ordered Rust to fix its mistake.  And in a
statement, Rust said on May 8 that it had "corrected the error and
plans to mail supplemental checks to affected borrowers as soon as
May 17."  It attributed the mistake to a "clerical error."

But the developments cast another harsh spotlight on Rust, which
had been selected as the distributor of checks for the $3.6
billion settlement deal that regulators struck with the banks.
The continued problems with Rust also raised questions about the
government's oversight of the firm and the wisdom of hiring it in
the first place.

What's more, some homeowners complain the problem is broader than
Rust has acknowledged.  Jennifer Lawson, whose husband is on
active duty with the Navy, said she was stunned when she received
a check on April 19 for $600.  Under the terms of the settlement
deal, Ms. Lawson expected thousands of dollars in compensation for
her foreclosure.

"First we are wrongfully tossed out of our home while serving this
country and then we get basically no money," Ms. Lawson said.

The problems have alarmed Capitol Hill and prompted investigations
into the settlement.

"This is the worst settlement I have seen in my life," said
Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, who
has opened an investigation into problems with the settlement,
including the use of Rust.

With more than 50 federal contracts to its name, and its own
political action committee spreading campaign donations across
Washington, Rust has become a favored middleman for class-action
lawsuits and government settlements.

In the foreclosure settlement case, in which regulators accused 13
lenders of wrongful evictions and other abuses, Rust appeared to
be the logical choice.  In fact, when executives from some banks
suggested a different consulting firm for the foreclosure
settlement, regulators balked, according to people briefed on the
matter.  The regulators instead suggested that the banks hire
Rust.

But problems emerged soon after the settlement was announced in
January.  The consulting firm, officials said, was initially slow
to alert borrowers to expected payments.  Then, the officials say,
Rust delayed the checks for weeks as it struggled to gear up for
the payments.

Once Rust issued the first round of checks in April, it failed to
move money into the bank account used for the settlement.  The
decision prevented some homeowners from cashing their checks.

Rust played down the mistake at first, saying in a private e-mail
to banks that the "perceived issues" with a handful of checks lack
"merit," according to a copy of the e-mail reviewed by The New
York Times.

But, in effect, the checks bounced. And after the incident, Rust
lost significant credibility with the regulators, officials said.

More recently, homeowners have complained about clerical errors at
Rust, problems like checks sent to the wrong addresses or issued
to deceased borrowers.

Norma Gammon, 54, said she thought things could not get much worse
after her home in Evansville, Ind., was sold at foreclosure
auction in June.  But then she started dealing with Rust.  After
contacting Rust at least six times to update her address, Ms.
Gammon said, she learned that the firm had sent the check to her
foreclosed property.  To receive another payment, Ms. Gammon has
to fill out a new form.  But Rust says the form has been sent
three times, apparently to the wrong address.

"It's so frustrating that I just want to cry," she said.

The firm's latest mistake -- sending out checks in the wrong
amounts -- could also prove difficult to remedy.

The problem stems when Rust issued checks to customers of Morgan
Stanley and Goldman Sachs.  Unlike the other banks involved in the
settlement, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley's foreclosures were
not subjected to a long independent assessment by outside
auditors.  As such, the banks agreed to pay some of its customers
an extra sum.

But Rust, according to the officials briefed on the matter, failed
to follow the payout plan.  Instead, it issued checks to customers
of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley based on a metric adopted by
the 11 other banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.

The misstep deprived some homeowners of thousands of dollars.  For
example, some Goldman and Morgan customers in bankruptcy who were
wrongfully evicted deserved a $4,650 check. They received $3,750
instead.

The problem was wide-ranging.  About 96,000 of the 220,000 Morgan
Stanley and Goldman Sachs customers received the wrong amount,
according to regulators.  It most likely affected every borrower
who was entitled to more money under the Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley plan.

Regulators detected the problem on May 7, when a concerned
borrower called the Federal Reserve to complain, according to a
person briefed on the matter.  The Fed then ordered Rust to devise
a solution.

Rather than cancel the checks, Rust decided to issue a second
round of payments to the harmed consumers.  In a statement, the
Fed instructed borrowers to "cash both the original checks and the
supplemental check." It also noted that "Rust has determined that
the error was limited to borrowers whose mortgages were serviced
by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley."

But anecdotal evidence suggested that Rust had encountered
separate problems, beyond Goldman and Morgan.  Housing advocates
point to the case of Ms. Lawson.

Under a federal law, banks are required to obtain court orders
before foreclosing on active-duty members like Ms. Lawson's
husband.  Some military members who were wrongfully evicted are
eligible to receive up to $125,000 in compensation through the
settlement.  Ms. Lawson, whose home near Jacksonville, Fla., was
sold at a foreclosure auction in 2010, said the "piddling amount"
of $600 was an injustice.

Mr. Cummings, the congressman from Maryland, also notes that Rust
does not include an explanation of what homeowners are owed under
the settlement.

"Borrowers are not being told how their compensation under the
settlement is determined," he said, "so it's impossible for them
to know whether they are receiving the correct amount, which just
adds insult to injury."

Regulators have noted that many consumers have seemingly had no
trouble cashing their checks.  By the end of May 7, regulators
say, homeowners successfully cashed or deposited about two million
checks, or slightly more than half of the total checks issued.

Still, that leaves nearly two million people who have either
delayed cashing the check or have had problems doing so.  Cynthia
Singerman, a staff lawyer with Housing and Economic Rights
Advocates, said that some of the problems morphed from seemingly
simple clerical fixes into a persistent problem for struggling
homeowners.

One of Ms. Singerman's clients whose home in Pleasanton, Calif.,
is in foreclosure cannot cash the $1,000 check she received from
Rust in April.  The problem, Ms. Singerman said, is that the check
is made out to the homeowner's husband, who died more than three
years ago.


                             *********

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  * * *