---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 98

                             Headlines


APPLE REIT: Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit Appealed
ARLINGTON ASSET: "Hildene" Class Action Suit Dismissed in March
ASSURED GUARANTY: "MDL 1950" Remains Pending in New York Court
ASSURED GUARANTY: Jefferson County Sewer Debt Suit Remains Stayed
BAXTER INT'L: Opposes Bid to Certify Securities Class in Ill.

BAXTER INT'L: Purchasers' Suit Over Plasma Therapies Ongoing
BIG 5 SPORTING: In Settlement Talks With Calif. Credit Card Users
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Want Suit Dismissal Reversed
CELANESE CORP: Still Awaits Ruling in Remaining Plumbing Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend Suit Over ADA Violations

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Defends Two Shareholder Suits in Colorado
CITIZENS BANK: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss EFTA Violation Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Parties to Submit Accord in Shareholders' Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Maryland Court Denies Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Dismissal of Md. Cases Sought After Del. Accord

COVENTRY HEALTH: Awaits Final OK of Pact in Merger Suits in Del.
CST BRANDS: Canadian Suits Alleging Price Fixing Remain Open
E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Face Suits Over Drinking Water Safety
E.I. DUPONT: Final Hearing on Imprelis Suit Deal on Sept. 27
E.I. DUPONT: Jury Trial in Titanium Dioxide Suit to Begin Sept. 9

EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Remain Pending in California
EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. StubHub Still Pending in Various States
EBAY INC: Still Defends TCPA Suits vs. PayPal and Bill Me Later
ENSIGN GROUP: Wins Final OK of Accord in Calif. "Staffing" Suit
IPARTY CORP: Reaches Settlement in "Halstead" Shareholder Suit

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Appeal in "Perlmutter" Suit Still Pending
JOLLY GOOD: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
MCKESSON CORP: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Advertisements
MECOX LANE: Plaintiffs Failed to Seek Review of Claims Dismissal
OPTIMUS ENTERPRISE: Recalls 355,000 Portable Electric Heaters

PACIFIC BELL: Gets Final Approval of "Ellis" Suit Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Dismissal of Tort Claims in "Caronia" Suit Upheld
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Suits Remain Pending in Ill. & Mo.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Answers Remaining Claims in "Villarreal" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Smith" Class Suit Still Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits May 29 Status Confab in "Turner" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Collora" Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Sateriale" Suit vs. Unit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Seven Suits in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Class Suit Still Has No Activity

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Bid for Indemnification Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Tatum" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Black" Suit in Feb. 2014
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Jones" Class Suit

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Class Suit Stayed Since March 2013
SAFEWAY STORES: Class Cert. Denial in Wage and Hour Suit Reversed
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Google Seeks Indemnification Over Class Suit
TIGER MEDIA: Claims in "Murdeshwar" Shareholder Suit Dismissed


                             *********


APPLE REIT: Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit styled In re Apple REITs Litigation, according to Apple
REIT Eight, Inc.'s April 19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 10, 2013, the Company said its motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class-Action Complaint In re Apple REITs
Litigation, 11-cv-02919 (EDNY Apr, 3, 2013) was granted in full
and with prejudice.  On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal.  The Company continues to believe that any
claims against it, its officers and directors and other Apple
entities are without merit, and intends to continue to defend
against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to
these proceedings, if any.

The Apple REIT companies are real estate investment trusts
(REITs).  Apple REIT Six, Inc.'s portfolio consists of 66 hotels,
containing a total of 7,658 guestrooms in 18 states.  Apple REIT
Seven, Inc.'s portfolio consists of 51 hotels, containing a total
of 6,426 guestrooms in 18 states. Apple REIT Eight, Inc.'s
portfolio consists of 51 hotels, containing a total of 5,912
guestrooms in 19 states.  Apple REIT Nine, Inc.'s portfolio
consists of 89 hotels, containing a total of 11,371 guestrooms in
27 states.  Apple REIT Ten, Inc.'s portfolio consists of 34 hotels
with a total of 4,367 guestrooms in 15 states.


ARLINGTON ASSET: "Hildene" Class Action Suit Dismissed in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Hildene Capital Management,
LLC, was dismissed in March 2013, according to Arlington Asset
Investment Corp.'s April 23, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 19, 2011, Hildene Capital Management, LLC, filed a
purported class action complaint captioned Hildene Capital
Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (d/b/a
Arlington Asset Investment Corp.), FBR Capital Trust VI, FBR
Capital Trust X, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and John and
Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 11 Civ. 5832, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On March
22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Voluntary
Dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Arlington Asset Investment Corp. -- http://www.arlingtonasset.com/
-- is a principal investment firm that acquires and holds
mortgage-related and other assets.  The Company is headquartered
in Arlington, Virginia.


ASSURED GUARANTY: "MDL 1950" Remains Pending in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs").  These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named subsidiaries of Assured Guaranty Ltd.,
Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc. ("AGMH") and Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"), as defendants: (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.  In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint; although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's activities,
it does not name those entities as defendants.  In March 2010, the
MDL 1950 court denied the named defendants' motions to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  The
complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of
loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.  When the four
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the
plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However, the
complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.  The
consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A. Amended complaints in these actions were filed in
September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming AGM
(but not AGMH) and Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. ("AGUS"),
among other defendants.  These cases have been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.

In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.

The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
eleven complaints in April 2010.  Amended complaints were filed in
May 2010.  On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District case only.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally
seek or sought unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from the remaining lawsuits.

In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood
City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010,
N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County
of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility
District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18,
2010, N.D. California); and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose
Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California).  These cases have also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  In September 2010, AGM
and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth additional
non-class action filed in federal court in New York, but which
alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in addition to
federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a
Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21,
2010, E.D. New York), which has also been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.  In December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other
defendants, were named in a seventh additional non-class action
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, Los
Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in
an eighth additional non-class action filed in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank
of America, N.A.  These cases also have been consolidated with MDL
1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
these lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.  This case has been consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaint in this
lawsuit generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

In September 2009, the Attorney General of the State of West
Virginia filed a lawsuit (Circuit Ct. Mason County, W. Va.)
against Bank of America, N.A. alleging West Virginia state
antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry,
seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to
fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal
derivatives, including GICs.  An amended complaint in this action
was filed in June 2010, adding a federal antitrust claim and
naming AGM (but not AGMH) and AGUS, among other defendants.  This
case has been removed to federal court as well as transferred to
the S.D.N.Y. and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial
proceedings.  The complaint in this lawsuit generally seeks civil
penalties, unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. -- http://www.assuredguaranty.com/-- is a
Bermuda-based holding company incorporated in 2003 that provides,
through its subsidiaries, credit protection products to the United
States and international public finance, infrastructure and
structured finance markets.  The Company applies its credit
underwriting judgment, risk management skills and capital markets
experience to offer insurance that protects holders of debt
instruments and other monetary obligations from defaults in
scheduled payments, including scheduled interest and principal
payments.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Jefferson County Sewer Debt Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s subsidiary, Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"), and other bond insurers, were
named as defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, relating to the County's problems
meeting its sewer debt obligations: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan
Chase & Co et al (filed the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-901907.00, a putative class action.
The action was brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and
citizens residing in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and
fraud in connection with the issuance of the County's debt.  The
complaint in this lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  On
January 13, 2011, the circuit court issued an order denying a
motion by the bond insurers and other defendants to dismiss the
action.  The Defendants, including the bond insurers, have
petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to the
circuit court vacating such order and directing the dismissal with
prejudice of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing.  On January
23, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court entered a stay pending the
resolution of the Jefferson County bankruptcy.  The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. -- http://www.assuredguaranty.com/-- is a
Bermuda-based holding company incorporated in 2003 that provides,
through its subsidiaries, credit protection products to the United
States and international public finance, infrastructure and
structured finance markets.  The Company applies its credit
underwriting judgment, risk management skills and capital markets
experience to offer insurance that protects holders of debt
instruments and other monetary obligations from defaults in
scheduled payments, including scheduled interest and principal
payments.


BAXTER INT'L: Opposes Bid to Certify Securities Class in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. has filed its opposition to a motion to
certify a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality issues.

Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its
shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the
second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the
board of directors and certain of the company's current and former
executive officers, and other damage to the company.

In September 2012, a federal court dismissed a consolidated
derivative suit pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District
of Illinois, and in October 2012, the plaintiffs appealed this
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. An
action pending in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois has
been stayed pending the outcome of the federal action.

In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company
and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover
the lost value of investors' stock. In April 2013, the company
filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class
action.


BAXTER INT'L: Purchasers' Suit Over Plasma Therapies Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. is a defendant, along with others, in a
number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output
and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies
since 2003.

The complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief
and in some cases demand treble damages. In February 2011, the
court denied the company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims
and the parties are proceeding with discovery.

In January 2012, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers. The trial
court returned the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the
court of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District
of California) in August 2012.

The company disclosed this information on its 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.


BIG 5 SPORTING: In Settlement Talks With Calif. Credit Card Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation and plaintiffs in a suit over
request for personal information from credit card users engaged in
Mandatory Settlement Conferences conducted in an effort to
negotiate a settlement of this litigation.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction:

     (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Maria
Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. BC455049;

     (2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott
Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC455477;

     (3) on February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena
Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC455459;

      (4) on March 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T.
Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC456300;

      (5) on March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Donna
Motta v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-
11-509228;

     (6) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v.
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123;

     (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Robin
Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-
11-508829;

     (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B.
Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-
2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK; and

     (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena
Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs
collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging
violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of
privacy and unlawful intrusion.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the Company's stores in California
were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of
such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class
members, the following: statutory penalties; attorneys' fees;
costs; restitution of property; disgorgement of profits; and
injunctive relief.

On February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013 and April 2, 2013, the
Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences
conducted by the court in an effort to negotiate a settlement of
this litigation. In connection therewith, the Company received
from the plaintiffs an offer to settle this litigation, which the
Company is currently considering.

Based on the terms of the settlement offer, the Company currently
believes that a settlement of this litigation will not have a
material negative impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial condition. However, if the plaintiffs and the Company
are unable to negotiate a settlement, the Company intends to
defend this litigation vigorously. If this litigation were to be
resolved unfavorably to the Company, such litigation and the costs
of defending it could have a material negative impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Want Suit Dismissal Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2013, the United States District Court, Middle District
of Tennessee, granted BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., and the other
named defendants' motion to dismiss a federal securities purported
class action lawsuit without leave to amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend Order and
Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, seeking reconsideration of
the Court's decision and BioMimetic filed a response opposing that
motion.  The Court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' motion.

These information are disclosed in Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s
10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.


CELANESE CORP: Still Awaits Ruling in Remaining Plumbing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation is still awaiting a court decision in an
appeal from the dismissal of the remaining plumbing lawsuit in the
U.S., according to the Company's April 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), a U.S. subsidiary of the
Company, which included the U.S. business now in the Advanced
Engineered Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company
("Shell"), E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and
others, has been a defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a
number of class actions, alleging that plastic resins manufactured
by these companies that were utilized by others in the production
of plumbing systems for residential property were defective for
this use and/or contributed to the failure of such plumbing.
Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts and
the successful use of the Company's acetal copolymer in similar
applications, CNA Holdings does not believe the Company's acetal
copolymer was defective for this use or contributed to the failure
of the plumbing.  In addition, in many cases CNA Holdings'
potential future exposure may be limited by, among other things,
statutes of limitations and repose.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion
County, Tennessee) matter.  The time to file claims against the
class has expired and the entity established by the court to
administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.  In
addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in various putative class actions.  The majority of
these actions have now been dismissed.  The dismissal of the
remaining U.S. case (St. Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company
d/b/a Shell Chemical Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin
Islands Superior Court) was appealed in 2011.  Oral argument for
the appeal took place on December 13, 2012, and a decision on the
appeal is expected in 2013.

As of March 31, 2013, the class actions in Canada are subject to a
pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of those
cases.  The Company does not believe the Possible Loss associated
with the remaining matters is material.  During the three months
ended March 31, 2013, the Company did not record any recoveries or
reductions in legal reserves related to plumbing actions to Other
(charges) gains, net in the unaudited interim consolidated
statements of operations.

Irving, Texas-based Celanese Corporation is a global technology
and specialty materials company.  The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp,
into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other
chemical-based products.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend Suit Over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging its restaurants violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the Company's
April 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed a lawsuit against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line
wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws.
On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit
in the same court making the same allegations on a class action
basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled
individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff.  The Company and the plaintiff
appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court
entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did
not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and
remanded the case to the district court.  On March 21, 2012, the
district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to
the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief.  On July 18,
2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the
plaintiff a portion of the attorney's fees and costs originally
sought, and on December 26, 2012, the court of appeals awarded the
plaintiff additional attorney's fees and costs for the appellate
portion of the case.

In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims
against the Company in those cases on an individual basis.  The
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on
class certification, which was denied by the court on
January 14, 2013.

The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls
throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief
in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a
significant majority of the Company's restaurants outside of
California as well.  The Company will continue to vigorously
defend the ongoing class action cases.  Due to the possibility of
further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional
potential liability from those cases.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Denver, Colorado, develops and operates fast-casual, fresh
Mexican food restaurants throughout the United States.  The
Company also has restaurants in Canada, London, England, and
Paris, France.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Defends Two Shareholder Suits in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., is defending two shareholder class
action lawsuits pending in Colorado, according to the Company's
April 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters
Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and July 19, 2012.  On August 17, 2012, Sonia
Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania
Beach Police & Firefighters complaint.  The complaints purport to
state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive
Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based
on the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period
to disclose material information about the Company's business
results and prospects.  The complaints assert that those failures
and related public statements were false and misleading and that,
as a result, the market price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated during the claimed class period.  The
complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.  The Company says it
intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from the cases.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Denver, Colorado, develops and operates fast-casual, fresh
Mexican food restaurants throughout the United States.  The
Company also has restaurants in Canada, London, England, and
Paris, France.


CITIZENS BANK: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss EFTA Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned OSMANI ALICEA, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS BANK OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Civil No. 12-1750, (W.D. Pa.).

Mr. Alicea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, has pled that Citizens Bank violated the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693, et seq. and its implementing
regulations, 12 C.F.R. Section 205 et seq., as it stood when he
filed his complaint on December 3, 2012, by charging him a $3 ATM
usage fee after allegedly failing to provide sufficient notice of
the said fee.  Citizens Bank countered that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to assert his claim, as he has not alleged injury in fact
by pleading that he was unaware of the fact that he would be
charged the $3 ATM fee.  Thus, Citizens Bank launched a facial
attack on the Plaintiff's Complaint, and moved to dismiss it under
Rule 12(b)(1).

According to Judge Fischer, the Court is persuaded that the
Plaintiff has stated allegations that constitute injury, in fact.
The Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to establish a federal
cause of action under the EFTA as it stood on December 3, 2012,
when he filed his Complaint.

"Because Plaintiff has set forth sufficient factual matter to show
that the EFTA claim is facially plausible as to Citizens Bank,
Defendant's motion fails," Judge Fischer concluded.

The Court directed the Defendant to file an answer to the
Plaintiff's Complaint by May 20, 2013, at 12:00 p.m.

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


COVENTRY HEALTH: Parties to Submit Accord in Shareholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the shareholder suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland will be submitting a formal written
settlement agreement to the court for preliminary approval,
according to Coventry Health Care, Inc.'s 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.

On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities
class action against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and three of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint,
three other shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with
the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead and liaison counsel.

By agreement, the four shareholders submitted a stipulation to the
court regarding appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead and liaison counsel. In December 2009, the court
approved the stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated and amended complaint. The purported class period was
February 9, 2007 to October 22, 2008. The consolidated and amended
complaint alleges that the Company's public statements contained
false, misleading and incomplete information regarding the
Company's profitability, particularly with respect to the profit
margins for its Medicare Advantage Private-Fee-For-Service
products.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order,
dated March 31, 2011, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Company
filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to that part of
the court's March 31, 2011 Order which denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the complaint.

The motion for reconsideration was denied but the court did rule
that the class period was further restricted to April 25, 2008 to
June 18, 2008.  As a result of a court ordered mediation, the
Company has entered into a settlement agreement with counsel for
the plaintiffs and the class. The parties will be submitting a
formal written settlement agreement to the court for preliminary
approval. These lawsuits are a covered claim under the Company's
Directors and Officers Liability Policy ("D&O Policy"), and
therefore, after exhaustion of the Company's self-insured
retention of $2.5 million, the settlement amount will be fully
funded and paid under the D&O Policy. The Company has accrued an
immaterial settlement amount in "accounts payable and other
accrued liabilities" and an associated recovery amount from the
D&O Policy in "other receivables, net" in the accompanying balance
sheet.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Maryland Court Denies Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied
motions to dismiss ERISA lawsuit against Coventry Health Care
Inc., according to the Company's 10-Q filing for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2013.

On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
ERISA class action lawsuit against Coventry Health Care Inc. and
several of its current and former officers, directors and
employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan
after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly
failing to provide complete and accurate information about the
Company's financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings
and public statements.

Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in
the same court and were consolidated on December 9, 2009. An
amended consolidated complaint has been filed.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011,
the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to
Certify the Court's March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both of those motions were
denied. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the consolidated lawsuit.

The Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of operations.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Dismissal of Md. Cases Sought After Del. Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Coyne v. Wise et al., C.A. No. 367380, was filed in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the
Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry Health Care, Inc., Aetna and
Merger Sub.

On August 27, 2012, a second putative stockholder class action
lawsuit captioned O'Brien v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al.,
C.A. 367577, was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.

On September 5, 2012, a third putative stockholder class action
lawsuit captioned Preze v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A.
367942, was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub. These three actions have been consolidated.

On August 19, 2012, the Company, Aetna Inc. ("Aetna") and Jaguar
Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Coventry's
public stockholders in connection with the Merger because the
merger consideration and certain other terms in the Merger
Agreement are unfair.

The complaints further allege that Aetna and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. In addition, the
complaints allege that the proposed Merger improperly favors Aetna
and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly
restrict Coventry's ability to negotiate with other potential
bidders. Among other remedies, the complaints seek injunctive
relief prohibiting the defendants from completing the proposed
Merger or, in the event that an injunction is not awarded,
unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

In November 2012, the court, in response to a motion filed by the
Company, entered an order which stayed all 3 actions for 90 days.

On February 13, 2013, the plaintiffs in each of the 3 lawsuits
filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their lawsuits based on
the settlement of the similar shareholder lawsuits filed in
Delaware.

These information are disclosed in Coventry's 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2013.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Awaits Final OK of Pact in Merger Suits in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 19, 2012, Coventry Health Care, Inc., Aetna Inc.
("Aetna") and Jaguar Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.

On August 31, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
7826-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry, Aetna
and Merger Sub.

On September 14, 2012, a second putative stockholder class action
lawsuit captioned Nashelsky v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. et al.,
C.A. No. 7868-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against the Coventry Board of Directors, Coventry,
Aetna and Merger Sub.

On September 27, 2012, and September 28, 2012, putative
stockholder class action lawsuits captioned Employees' Retirement
System of the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Coventry Health
Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 7905-CS and Farina v. Coventry Health
Care, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 7909-CS, were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Coventry Board of
Directors, Coventry, Aetna and Merger Sub.

On October 1, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in the Brennan
v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. action. The complaints generally
allege that, among other things, the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of
Coventry in connection with the Merger because the merger
consideration and certain other terms in the merger agreement are
unfair. The complaints further allege that Aetna and Merger Sub
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. In
addition, the complaints generally allege that certain provisions
of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Coventry's ability to
negotiate with other potential bidders and that the Merger
Agreement lacks adequate safeguards on behalf of Coventry's
stockholders against the decline in the value of the stock
component of the merger consideration.

The complaints in the Employees' Retirement System of the
Government of the Virgin Islands, and Farina actions and the
amended complaint in the Brennan action also generally allege that
Aetna's Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on September 21,
2012, contained various deficiencies. Among other remedies, the
complaints generally seek injunctive relief prohibiting the
defendants from completing the proposed Merger, rescissionary and
other types of damages and costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 4, 2012, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered an order consolidating the four Delaware actions under the
caption In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 7905-CS, appointing the Employees'
Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, the
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, and the Police
and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs. On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated
Delaware action filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and on
October 10, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking
any action to consummate the Merger.

The parties have since reached agreement on the schedule for those
proceedings, which was entered by order of the Court on October
12, 2012. Pursuant to that scheduling order, a hearing on
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion was scheduled for
November 20, 2012.

On November 12, 2012, the Company and all named defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs and
their respective counsel which set forth an agreement in principle
providing for the settlement of the In re Coventry Health Care,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

In consideration for the full settlement and dismissal with
prejudice of the Shareholder Litigation and releases, the
defendants agreed to (1) include additional disclosures in the
definitive prospectus/proxy statement; (2) amend the Merger
Agreement to reduce the Termination Fee payable by the Company
upon termination of the Merger Agreement from $167,500,000 to
$100,000,000; (3) amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the period
during which the Company is required to discuss and negotiate with
Aetna before making an Adverse Recommendation Change relating to a
Superior Proposal from five calendar days to two calendar days;
and (4) pay any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court.
The MOU requires the parties to negotiate and execute a
Stipulation of Settlement for submission to the court to obtain
final court approval of the settlement and dismissal of the
Shareholder Litigation.


CST BRANDS: Canadian Suits Alleging Price Fixing Remain Open
------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits arising from CST Brands, Inc.'s retail
operations in Canada remain pending, according to the Company's
April 19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Ultramar Ltd., Valero's principal Canadian subsidiary
("Ultramar"), was named as a defendant in four class actions
alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in illegal
price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of Quebec.
The cases were filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea by
Ultramar and an employee and charges laid against several alleged
co-conspirators.  As a result, four class actions were filed on
the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs. Ultramar. et
al., in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City,
(ii) Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar, et al.,
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael
Jeanson, et al. vs. Ultramar et, al., Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs. Ultramar, et al., Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal.  As required pursuant to
the civil procedure rules in effect, the first filed claim is
given priority, and the others are suspended pending final
judgment on the first filed claim.  The guilty plea followed an
extensive government investigation and was confined to a limited
time period and limited geographic area around Thetford Mines and
Victoriaville in Quebec.  The plaintiffs attempted to widen the
scope, alleging the existence of a conspiracy extending between
2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec.  The court allowed a time range
of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the geographic area beyond the
four limited markets identified by the investigation.  A hearing
on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in November
2009, the court authorized the action to proceed on a class basis
for the limited geographic area.  A statement of claim was filed
but the proceedings were suspended until May 5, 2011.  The
suspension was a result, in part, of damage proof issues for
plaintiffs that developed pre-discovery.  The court required the
plaintiffs to file a report on damages on May 5, 2011.  Ultramar
intends to vigorously contest the scope of alleged liability and
damages.

On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion
to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel
Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Quebec.  This matter had previously been put in
abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed.  The plaintiff
changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse
alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec.  By
issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as
for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim
outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the
Jacques matter.  On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of
Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the
territory to be covered by the action.

Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out
of the Company's retail operations in Canada.  As a result, the
Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless
Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims
pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company concluded a loss
was probable and reasonably estimable and as such, the Company
recorded an immaterial loss contingency liability.  Due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company believes it is
reasonably possible that the Company may suffer a loss in excess
of the amount recorded that could have a material adverse effect
on its results of operations, financial position or liquidity with
respect to one or more of the lawsuits.  An estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or
substantially all of these cases cannot be reasonably made due to
a number of factors, the most significant of which is that no
amount of damages has been specified by the plaintiffs.

CST Brands, Inc. -- http://www.CSTBrands.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in San Antonio, Texas.  The Company is a large
independent retailer of motor fuel and convenience merchandise
items in the U.S. and eastern Canada.


E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Face Suits Over Drinking Water Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company continues to face lawsuits
alleging deleterious health effects from exposure to
perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts in drinking water, according
to the Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic
acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt (collectively,
"PFOA") in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The Company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel").  The studies
were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

A panel of three medical experts will determine an appropriate
medical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of these
findings.  If a medical monitoring protocol for any of these
diseases is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medical
monitoring program to pay for such medical testing.  The
Plaintiffs may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only
for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined
a probable link exists.  In January 2012, the Company put $1
million in an escrow account as required by the settlement
agreement.  Under the settlement agreement, the Company's total
obligation to pay for medical monitoring cannot exceed $235
million.  In addition, the Company must continue to provide water
treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six
area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water
Association (LHWA), and private well users.

An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is ongoing.  In addition to
general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water, the action
claims "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the
environment" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).  DuPont denies these claims and is defending itself
vigorously.

At March 31, 2013, 42 lawsuits alleging personal injury and two
lawsuits alleging wrongful death from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water are pending in federal court in Ohio and West Virginia.
This is an increase in pending cases of 17 and one, respectively,
over year-end 2012.  These cases have been consolidated for
discovery purposes in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal
court.  DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is
defending itself vigorously.

While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could
incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to PFOA-related
cases for which it has established accruals, a range of such
losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company -- http://www.dupont.com/--
is a global science company headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Company's major products by segment include: Agriculture (corn
hybrids and soybean varieties, herbicides, fungicides and
insecticides); Electronics & Communications (photopolymers and
electronic materials); Industrial Biosciences (enzymes and bio-
based materials); Nutrition & Health (cultures, emulsifiers, gums,
natural sweeteners and soy-based food ingredients): Performance
Chemicals (fluorochemicals, fluoropolymers, specialty and
industrial chemicals, and white pigments); Performance Materials
(engineering polymers, packaging and industrial polymers, films
and elastomers); Safety & Protection (nonwovens, aramids and solid
surfaces); and Pharmaceuticals.


E.I. DUPONT: Final Hearing on Imprelis Suit Deal on Sept. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on final approval of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company's settlement of lawsuits relating to Imprelis(R) is
scheduled for September 27, 2013, according to the Company's April
23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company has received claims and been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused
damage to certain trees.  The lawsuits seeking class action status
have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal
court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In February 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement.  The settlement incorporates the
Company's existing claims process and provides certain additional
relief.  The proposed settlement class includes affected property
owners and lawn care companies who do not "opt out" of the
settlement. DuPont may cancel the agreement if the number of "opt-
outs" is unsatisfactory to DuPont.  As part of the settlement,
DuPont will pay about $7 million in plaintiffs' attorney fees and
expenses.  In addition, DuPont is providing a warranty against new
damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis(R) on class members'
properties through May 2015.  The settlement notification process
began on March 25, 2013.  The notice period is scheduled to end on
June 28, 2013, which will also be the last day to "opt out" of the
settlement or file a new claim.  The court has scheduled the final
approval hearing on September 27, 2013.  In addition, about 95
individual actions on behalf of approximately 195 plaintiffs have
been filed in state court in various jurisdictions.  DuPont has
removed most of these cases to federal court in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  Once removed to federal court, the individual
actions are stayed through September 2013.

In August 2011, the Company suspended sales of Imprelis(R) and in
September 2011 began a process to fairly resolve claims associated
with the use of Imprelis(R).  The Company believes that the number
of unasserted claims is limited due to the fact that sales were
suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during
the 2011 spring application season.

The Company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims.  There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time.  Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

At March 31, 2013, DuPont had recorded charges of $785 million to
resolve these claims, which included charges of $35 million
recorded during the first quarter 2013.  It is reasonably possible
that additional charges could result related to this matter. While
there is a high degree of uncertainty, total charges could range
up to $900 million.  Predicting the impact of Imprelis(R) on
living organisms and how those organisms may react over time are
significant factors driving the uncertainty of future charges.
Imprelis(R) was applied throughout the United States and the
ability of any particular species of tree to naturally recover
over time may be different depending on the property's geography
and associated climate.  The Company has an applicable insurance
program with a deductible equal to the first $100 million of costs
and expenses.  The insurance program limits are $725 million for
costs and expenses in excess of the $100 million.  DuPont has
submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its
insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter.  The
process of seeking insurance recovery is ongoing and the timing
and outcome are uncertain.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company -- http://www.dupont.com/--
is a global science company headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Company's major products by segment include: Agriculture (corn
hybrids and soybean varieties, herbicides, fungicides and
insecticides); Electronics & Communications (photopolymers and
electronic materials); Industrial Biosciences (enzymes and bio-
based materials); Nutrition & Health (cultures, emulsifiers, gums,
natural sweeteners and soy-based food ingredients): Performance
Chemicals (fluorochemicals, fluoropolymers, specialty and
industrial chemicals, and white pigments); Performance Materials
(engineering polymers, packaging and industrial polymers, films
and elastomers); Safety & Protection (nonwovens, aramids and solid
surfaces); and Pharmaceuticals.


E.I. DUPONT: Jury Trial in Titanium Dioxide Suit to Begin Sept. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial is scheduled to begin September 9, 2013, in the
Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, according to E. I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In February 2010, two lawsuits were filed in Maryland federal
district court alleging conspiracy to fix prices of titanium
dioxide sold in the U.S. between March 2002 and the present.  The
cases were subsequently consolidated and are pending against
DuPont, Huntsman International LLC, Kronos Worldwide Inc. and
Millenium Inorganics Chemicals Inc.  In August 2012, the court
certified a class consisting of U.S. customers that have directly
purchased titanium dioxide since February 1, 2003.  The class
seeks injunctive relief and to recover alleged overcharges and
treble damages plus attorneys' fees and costs.  Jury trial is
scheduled to begin September 9, 2013.

The Company believes this case is without merit and expects to
prevail.  Given the inherent uncertainties in litigation, it is
reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to
this matter.  A range of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company -- http://www.dupont.com/--
is a global science company headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Company's major products by segment include: Agriculture (corn
hybrids and soybean varieties, herbicides, fungicides and
insecticides); Electronics & Communications (photopolymers and
electronic materials); Industrial Biosciences (enzymes and bio-
based materials); Nutrition & Health (cultures, emulsifiers, gums,
natural sweeteners and soy-based food ingredients): Performance
Chemicals (fluorochemicals, fluoropolymers, specialty and
industrial chemicals, and white pigments); Performance Materials
(engineering polymers, packaging and industrial polymers, films
and elastomers); Safety & Protection (nonwovens, aramids and solid
surfaces); and Pharmaceuticals.


EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Remain Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed against a subsidiary of eBay
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  These lawsuits contain allegations related to
violations of aspects of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
Regulation E and violations of a previous settlement agreement
related to Regulation E of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, and/or
allege that PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise
improperly limited users' accounts.  These lawsuits seek damages
as well as changes to PayPal's practices, among other remedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of
other laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to
significant liability.  Any changes to PayPal's practices
resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend substantial resources, which could
delay other planned product launches or improvements and further
harm the Company's business.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 19, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Based in San Jose, California, eBay Inc. -- http://www.eBay.com/-
- is a global technology company that enables commerce through
three reportable business segments: Marketplaces, Payments and GSI
Commerce, Inc.  The Company's Marketplaces segment includes its
eBay.com platform, localized counterparts and other online trading
platforms like StubHub.  The Company's Payments segment is
comprised of PayPal, Bill Me Later and Zong.


EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. StubHub Still Pending in Various States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits over the resale of tickets remain pending,
according to eBay Inc.'s April 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub
sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert
tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were
resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale
price law (which has been subsequently amended).  In February
2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications
Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further held that
StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade
practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and
certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.  In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, and the Court of
Appeals' decision is now final.  Similar actions are pending in
other states.  Laws and regulations governing the resale of event
tickets outside the U.S. (for example, in Europe) may be more
restrictive, and carry harsher penalties and fines, than
corresponding U.S. laws and regulations.  In 2012, France passed a
law prohibiting the habitual resale of event tickets without
permission from the event organizer.  In addition, the
unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is illegal in the
U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  Such litigation could result in damage awards,
could require the Company to change its business practices in ways
that may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise negatively
affect its tickets business.

Based in San Jose, California, eBay Inc. -- http://www.eBay.com/-
- is a global technology company that enables commerce through
three reportable business segments: Marketplaces, Payments and GSI
Commerce, Inc.  The Company's Marketplaces segment includes its
eBay.com platform, localized counterparts and other online trading
platforms like StubHub.  The Company's Payments segment is
comprised of PayPal, Bill Me Later and Zong.


EBAY INC: Still Defends TCPA Suits vs. PayPal and Bill Me Later
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing
allegations that eBay Inc.'s businesses violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in February
2012) contains allegations that commercial advertisements for
PayPal products and services were sent via text message to mobile
phones without prior consent.  Murray v. Bill Me Later (filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in
June 2012) contains allegations that Bill Me Later made calls
featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without prior consent.
These lawsuits, and other private lawsuits not currently alleged
as class actions, seek damages (including statutory damages) and
injunctive relief, among other remedies.  Given the enormous
number of communications the Company sends to its users, a
determination that there have been violations of laws relating to
PayPal's or Bill Me Later's practices (or those of any of the
Company's other companies) under the TCPA or other communications-
based statutes could expose the Company to significant damage
awards that could, individually or in the aggregate, materially
harm the Company's business.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 19, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Based in San Jose, California, eBay Inc. -- http://www.eBay.com/-
- is a global technology company that enables commerce through
three reportable business segments: Marketplaces, Payments and GSI
Commerce, Inc.  The Company's Marketplaces segment includes its
eBay.com platform, localized counterparts and other online trading
platforms like StubHub.  The Company's Payments segment is
comprised of PayPal, Bill Me Later and Zong.


ENSIGN GROUP: Wins Final OK of Accord in Calif. "Staffing" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. obtained final approval of the settlement
of the "staffing" suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Other companies in the Company's industry have been the subject of
lawsuits alleging negligence, abuses and other causes of action
which have, in some cases, resulted in large demand awards and
settlements. In addition, there has been an increase in the number
of class-action suits filed against the Company and other
companies in its industry, which also have the potential to result
in large damage awards and settlements. For example, a class
action suit was previously filed against the Company in the State
of California, alleging, among other things, violations of certain
Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act at certain of the Company's California
facilities. In 2007, the Company settled this class action suit,
and the settlement was approved by the affected class and the
Court.

Healthcare litigation is common and is filed based upon a wide
variety of claims and theories, and the Company said it is
routinely subjected to varying types of claims. One particular
type of suit arises from alleged violations of state-established
minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing facilities.
Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things,
jeopardize a facility's compliance with conditions of
participation under certain state and federal healthcare programs;
it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a
citation, civil money penalty, or litigation.

These "staffing" suits have become more prevalent in the wake of a
previous substantial jury award against one of the Company's
competitors, and the Company expects the plaintiff's bar to become
increasingly aggressive in their pursuit of these staffing and
similar claims. The Company is currently defending one such
staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court,
and has reached a tentative settlement with class counsel that is
awaiting court approval. The total costs associated with the
settlement, including attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and
related costs and expenses, are projected to be $5,000, of which,
$2,596 of this amount was recorded in the quarter ended June 30,
2012, with the balance having been expensed in prior periods.

The Final Approval Order relative to the subject settlement was
signed by the Court on or about March 20, 2013.  The Company said
the settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial condition or results of
operations.


IPARTY CORP: Reaches Settlement in "Halstead" Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
iParty Corp., Party City, Merger Sub, and plaintiff in the
Halstead Complaint reached an agreement-in-principle providing for
the settlement of a shareholder suit over the Confetti Merger
plan.

On April 10, 2013, iParty Corp. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement dated April 11,
2013, with respect to the special meeting of iParty stockholders
scheduled to be held on May 9, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, iParty entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, by and among the iParty, Party City Holdings Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and Confetti Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Party City, which
provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into iParty, with
iParty surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Party
City.

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, on March 8, 2013,
a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, members of the Company's Board of Directors, Party City
and Merger Sub in the Massachusetts Superior Court (Suffolk
County) (Vincent Sean Halstead, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated vs. iParty Corp. et al, B.L.S. 13-0842)
(the "Halstead Complaint"), which complaint was amended on April
9, 2013.

On May 1, 2013, the Company, Party City, Merger Sub, and plaintiff
in the Halstead Complaint reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the outstanding litigation on the
terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the
claims in the Halstead Complaint have merit or that any
supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable statute,
rule, regulation or law, the Company agreed to make certain
supplemental and amended disclosures in this Current Report on
Form 8-K. The MOU further provides that, among other things, (a)
the parties to the MOU will enter into a definitive settlement
agreement (the "Agreement") and will submit the Agreement to the
Suffolk County Superior Court (the "Court") for review and
approval; (b) the Agreement will provide for dismissal of the
Halstead Complaint with prejudice; (c) the Agreement will include
a general release of defendants of claims relating to the
transaction; and (d) the proposed settlement is conditioned on
final approval by the Court. There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be finalized or that the Court will approve the
settlement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting
or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to stockholders
of iParty in connection with the proposed Merger.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Appeal in "Perlmutter" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., remains pending,
according to the Company's April 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against seven of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008, and
January 7, 2009.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the
Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  On
February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was
appointed Lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended complaint
was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially
similar to the original allegations.  On May 23, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 10,
2011, that motion was granted and the action was dismissed; the
plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint.

On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
The allegations contained therein are substantially similar to the
allegations in the prior complaint.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing occurred on February 16,
2012, and on May 22, 2012, the Company's motion was granted.  The
complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and a final judgment was
entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012.

On June 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal
is styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430.  The Plaintiffs filed their
opening brief on September 28, 2012.  The Company filed an
answering brief on November 13, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a
reply brief on December 17, 2012.  No oral argument date has been
set, and the appeal remains pending.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in
Sunnyvale, California, designs, manufactures and markets da Vinci
Surgical Systems and related instruments and accessories.  A da
Vinci Surgical System consists of a surgeon's console, a patient-
side cart and a high performance vision system.


JOLLY GOOD: 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
7-oz. packages of "Jolly Good Melton Mowbray Brand Pie" products
that have been recalled by Jolly Good Meat Products.

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/rwEk79,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
    -------------               --------
    Grub-N-Scrub                Surprise, Arizona
    Piccadilly Shop             Burbank, California
    Bit O Britain               Carlsbad, California
    Major Market                Fallbrook, California
    British Grocer              Fullerton, California
    Shamrock & Thistle          Garden Grove, California
    Indo China Market           Goleta, California
    7-11 Huntington             Huntington Beach, California
    African Hut                 Laguna Niguel, California
    The Willows Market          Menlo Park, California
    Nina's Grocery              Mission Viejo, California
    Shakespeare's Corner Shoppe San Diego, California
    You Say Tomato              San Francisco, California
    Head King Meat              Santa Monica, California
    Continental Shop            Santa Monica, California
    Hare & Hound                Thousand Oaks, California
    British Connection          Torrance, California
    British Emporium            Upland, California
    Ames British Foods          Ames, Iowa
    Queens Pantry               Leavenworth, Kansas
    International Marketplace   Las Vegas, Nevada
    Jungle Jims Int'l Market    Fairfield, Ohio
    Things UK                   Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
    Lady Di's British Store     Lake Oswego, Oregon
    Scottish Country Shop       Portland, Oregon
    British Shoppe              Abilene, Texas
    A Bir Of Britain            San Antonio, Texas
    British Aisles              Puyallup, Washington


MCKESSON CORP: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
True Health Chiropractic, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. McKesson Corporation and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:13-cv-02219
(N.D. Cal., May 15, 2013) challenges the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to the Plaintiff and
the Class in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.  The Plaintiff contends that a junk fax recipient loses the
use of its fax machine, paper and ink toner.

True Health is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ohio.

McKesson Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California.  The Doe
Defendants will be identified through discovery, but are not
presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
          36 East Seventh Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 768-5220
          Facsimile: (513) 768-9220
          E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com

               - and -

          John Lowry, Esq.
          BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
          36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 1510
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 421-2255
          Facsimile: (513) 421-2764
          E-mail: jlowry@bklawfirm.com


MECOX LANE: Plaintiffs Failed to Seek Review of Claims Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mecox Lane Limited said in its April 23, 2013, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that the lead plaintiff of a consolidated
class action lawsuit failed to file a petition to the United
States Supreme Court to review the dismissal of its securities
claims before the expiration of the deadline.

On December 3, 2010, a class action complaint captioned Arfa v.
Mecox Lane Limited, et al., No. 10-CV-9053, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's ordinary shares issued pursuant to its initial
public offering.  The named defendants are the Company, certain
individual defendants by virtue of their positions as officers and
directors of the Company, namely Neil Nanpeng Shen, John J. Ying,
Paul Bang Zhang, Alfred Beichun Gu, Kelvin Kenling Yu, Anthony Yai
Yiu Lo and David Jian Sun, or the Individual Defendants, and two
underwriters involved in the initial public offering, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and UBS AG.  The plaintiff in the Arfa
action alleges that the defendants included or allowed to be
included materially false and misleading statements in the
registration statement and annual report issued in connection with
the initial public offering in violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and against the Individual Defendants
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  Specifically, the
plaintiff contends that the registration statement and annual
report for the Company's initial public offering were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose at the time
of the initial public offering that: (i) it already was
foreseeable that the Company would not be able to achieve results
for the third quarter of 2010 that were in line with either
historical growth trends or defendants' guidance; (ii) the Company
already had experienced disappointing results for the third
quarter of 2010, prior to the initial public offering -- including
a significant decline in gross margins that were adversely
impacted by increased costs and expenses; (iii) defendants had not
conducted an adequate due diligence investigation into the
Company; and (iv) the Company lacked adequate internal financial
controls.

On January 4, 2011, a virtually identical class action complaint
captioned Brady v. Mecox Lane Limited, et al., No. 11-CIV-0034 was
filed by the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP,
also in the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased the Company's American Depositary Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's October 2010
registration statement and annual report.  The Brady complaint
added Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. and Roth Capital Partners LLC as
additional underwriter defendants, and added a claim under Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

On March 31, 2011, the actions were consolidated by order of Judge
Robert Sweet.  The Court appointed the Westend Group as lead
plaintiff, and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and Pomerantz Haudek
Grossman & Gross LLP as co-lead counsel.  The Westend Group filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint on May 31, 2011,
which asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act,
along with the derivative claims under Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  The Company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint, and oral argument on the motion was
held on January 18, 2012.

On March 1, 2012, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
without prejudice the plaintiff's claims.  On April 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On November 29, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the
plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act and
derivative claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The
Plaintiff did not seek an en banc review of the decision, and
failed to file a petition to the United States Supreme Court to
review the decision before the expiration of the deadline.

As of April 23, 2013, the Company believes that an ultimate
outcome unfavorable to the Company as a result of this class
action is "remote."

Mecox Lane Limited is a multi-channel retailer of apparel and
accessories in China.  The Company offers a wide selection of
affordable fashion products through Internet platforms including
the M18.com Web site and other independent e-commerce Web sites.
The Company is headquartered in Shanghai, China.


OPTIMUS ENTERPRISE: Recalls 355,000 Portable Electric Heaters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Optimus Enterprise Inc., of Anaheim, California; and
manufacturer, Dongguang Hong-Hwa Electric Co. Ltd., announced a
voluntary recall of about 355,000 Portable Infrared Radiant Quartz
Electric Space Heaters.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The heater design can fail to prevent ignition of nearby
combustible materials that come in contact with the unit, posing a
fire hazard to the consumer.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves two models of Optimus Infrared Quartz Radiant
heaters with model numbers H-5210, produced in 2011 and H-5211,
produced in 2012.  The model number and the year of production
appear on a label on the back of the heater.  The recalled heaters
are white and are approximately 12-inches wide by 13-inches tall
by 6-inches deep.  "Optimus" is printed on the top left of the
heater.  The control knob is located on the top right side of the
heater.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/t8qXcu

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Buy Market Place, Family Dollar, Heartland, Northern Tool,  Rite
Aid and other stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, ebay.com
and Walmart.com from October 2011 through December 2012 for
between $25 and $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heaters and
contact Optimus to request a free replacement heater.  Consumers
have the option of a comparable ceramic heater or new model quartz
radiant heater, model H-5510, which will be available after August
2013.  Optimus Enterprise Inc. may be reached toll-free at (888)
672-5832 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.optimusent.com/and click on "recall" for more
information.  Consumers can also e-mail the firm at
return.optimus@gmail.com


PACIFIC BELL: Gets Final Approval of "Ellis" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cormac J. Carney granted final approval of a
settlement agreement in ELLIS v. PACIFIC BELL/TELEPHONE COMPANY.

Judge Carney held that the Settlement Agreement is in all respects
fair, reasonable and adequate.

The Court said a payment of $20,000 will be made as penalties
authorized by the Private Attorney General Act, of which $15,000
will be paid directly to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency.

A payment of Service Awards of $10,000 will be made to each named
Plaintiff, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The ruling incorporates the order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of class counsel's attorney's fees and costs
submitted to the Court on April 2, 2013.

The case is LYNN ELLIS, ROSEANN ARANDA, ANGELA CULPEPPER, and
LLOYD JOLY, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC BELL/TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a AT&T
OPERATIONS, INC., AT&T ENTERPRISES SERVICES, INC., AT&T CORP., and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. SACV11-00627
CJC (FFMx), (C.D. Cal.).

The parties to the Litigation obtained preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement on January 3, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's May 6, 2013 judgment and final
order is available at http://is.gd/q9VNIcfrom Leagle.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dismissal of Tort Claims in "Caronia" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a
ruling on the appeal filed by plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned
MARCIA L. CARONIA, LINDA McAULEY, and ARLENE FELDMAN, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Docket
No. 11-0316-cv.

Marcia L. Caronia, Linda McAuley, and Arlene Feldman took an
appeal from a judgment entered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
dismissing their tort claims alleging negligence, strict products
liability, and breach of the Uniform Commercial Code, implied
warranty of merchantability in connection with the design,
manufacture, and sale by defendant Philip Morris USA, Inc., of
cigarettes that allegedly contain unnecessarily dangerous levels
of carcinogens when smoked by humans, and their independent
equitable claim seeking to require Philip Morris to fund a program
of medical monitoring for longtime smokers of Marlboro cigarettes
who have not been diagnosed with, but are at risk for, lung
cancer.

The District Court granted Philip Morris's motions for summary
judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' negligence and strict
liability claims on the ground that they were untimely, and
dismissing the breach-of-implied-warranty claims on the grounds
that the Plaintiffs' earliest such claims were untimely, and that
the timely warranty claims were not supported by sufficient
evidence of breach.  The Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), granted Philip Morris's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' free-standing claim for medical monitoring of Marlboro
smokers who lack symptoms of smoking-related disease, ruling that
the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted because they could not sufficiently plead that their
injuries -- i.e., their increased risk of cancer from smoking
Marlboro cigarettes -- were proximately caused by Philip Morris's
conduct.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend principally that their
negligence and products liability claims are timely and that they
adequately pleaded proximate cause in their claims for breach of
implied warranty and in their independent claim for medical
monitoring.

On May 1, 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
District Court to the extent that it dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, holding that the District Court
properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for negligence and
strict products liability as barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  The issue of fact raised by the Plaintiffs as to
whether Philip Morris could have made Marlboro cigarettes safer is
not an issue that is material to the claim of breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, says the ruling.  That implied
warranty is not breached if the cigarettes were minimally safe
when used in the customary, usual, and reasonably foreseeable
manner.  Therefore, the summary judgment dismissing these claims
was appropriate, the Second Circuit concluded.

With respect to the Plaintiff's free-standing equitable claim for
medical monitoring, the Second Circuit says the question of
whether a plaintiff may maintain an independent cause of action
for medical monitoring under New York law has not been addressed
by the New York Court of Appeals.  And although the matter has
been dealt with in New York's intermediate appellate courts, in
the federal district courts in New York, and in the highest courts
of several other states, the treatments have varied.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit certified questions to the Court
of Appeals for the State of New York with respect to the existence
of such a claim under New York State law, and, if such a claim is
recognized, as to the elements and accrual of such a claim:

   (1) Under New York law, may a current or former longtime heavy
       smoker who has not been diagnosed with a smoking-related
       disease, and who is not under investigation by a physician
       for such a suspected disease, pursue an independent
       equitable cause of action for medical monitoring for such a
       disease?

   (2) If New York recognizes such an independent cause of action
       for medical monitoring,

       (A) What are the elements of that cause of action?

       (B) What is the applicable statute of limitations, and when
           does that cause of action accrue?

The Second Circuit retains jurisdiction of the appeal for
resolution after disposition of the certified questions by the New
York Court of Appeals.

A copy of the Second Circuit's May 1, 2013 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/qe7c6Yfrom Leagle.com.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Suits Remain Pending in Ill. & Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of Reynolds
American Inc. remain pending in Illinois and Missouri, according
to the Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(B&W) in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2).  The classes in these
cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages.  Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.
Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement.  On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case.  On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day.  In December
2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment,
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal.  The trial court
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from judgment in February 2009.

In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court.  On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an
order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a
petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the
trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18,
2006.  The appellate court, therefore, found that the petition was
timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.  Philip Morris filed a petition for
leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  On
September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip
Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.

In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from the judgment.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District.
Briefing is underway.  Philip Morris filed a motion to transfer
the plaintiff's appeal directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Answers Remaining Claims in "Villarreal" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. and other defendants' filed in March 2013
answers to the remaining disparate treatment claim in the class
action lawsuit titled Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., according to the Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

In Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
June 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint
against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., and
CareerBuilder, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Georgia.  The complaint alleges unlawful discrimination with
respect to the hiring of individuals to fill entry-level regional
sales positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq.).  The defendants'
motion for partial dismissal was granted on March 6, 2013,
thereby, eliminating the plaintiff's disparate impact claim and
limiting the relevant time period for both the plaintiff's claims
and potential class claims.  The defendants filed answers to the
remaining disparate treatment claim on March 20, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Smith" Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
(RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), in
federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers
combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation
of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices
statutes.  In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to
certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons
who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more
of the defendants.  As of March 31, 2013, all of the federal and
state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings,
Inc. (RJR, a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.),
seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive
damages.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated
in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in
the United States.  In an opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the
plaintiffs' claims.  On July 18, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits May 29 Status Confab in "Turner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. is waiting for the May 29, 2013 status
conference in the class action lawsuit titled Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001.  In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a
motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the
Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July
2003.  In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order
request.  In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.  On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court.  A status conference is
scheduled for May 29, 2013.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Collora" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
styled Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to the
Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W) in Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis
County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in
December 2003.  In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single
general division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.  In April 2008, the court
stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v.
Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  A status
conference is scheduled for February 3, 2014.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Sateriale" Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary from a
class action lawsuit styled Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., according to the Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses.  In January 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in February 2010.  The class definition changed
to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and
tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from
October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel
Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007.  The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a
proposed California subclass, consisting of all California
residents meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively,
for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010.  In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.  In
July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012.  RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012.  Trial is scheduled for
March 4, 2014.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Seven Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary from
seven class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the
Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) and one of its
affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan,
although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only
the action pending in Saskatchewan at this time:

   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
     Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-
     related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
     affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
     individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have
     suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive
     pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after
     having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
     manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the
     defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, and their dependents and family
     members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by
     the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period of
     January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set
     by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
     respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of
     25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
     marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart
     disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed
     by the defendants.

   * In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
     case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of
     Justice against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
     entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates,
     the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
     individuals, including their estates, who were alive on
     June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
     suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart
     disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
     cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
     distributed by the defendants.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to Japan Tobacco Inc.  Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Class Suit Still Has No Activity
------------------------------------------------------------
In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in December 2001.  In June 2003, the trial judge
issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case.  The plaintiffs appealed this
stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.

There is currently no activity in the case, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Bid for Indemnification Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
By purchase agreement dated March 9, 1999, amended and restated as
of May 11, 1999, referred to as the 1999 Purchase Agreement, R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (RJR, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Reynolds American Inc.) and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR
Tobacco) sold the international tobacco business to Japan Tobacco
Inc.  Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco
retained certain liabilities relating to the international tobacco
business sold to JTI.  Under its reading of the indemnification
provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has requested
indemnification for damages allegedly arising out of these
retained liabilities.  As previously reported, a number of the
indemnification claims between the parties relating to the
activities of Northern Brands in Canada have been resolved.  The
other matters for which JTI has requested indemnification for
damages under the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase
Agreement are:

   * In a letter dated March 31, 2006, counsel for JTI stated
     that JTI would be seeking indemnification under the 1999
     Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur or may have
     incurred arising out of a Southern District of New York
     grand jury investigation, a now-terminated Eastern District
     of North Carolina grand jury investigation, and various
     actions filed by the European Community and others in the
     U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
     referred to as the EDNY, against RJR Tobacco and certain of
     its affiliates on November 3, 2000, August 6, 2001, and
     October 30, 2002, and against JTI on January 11, 2002.

   * JTI also has sought indemnification relating to a Statement
     of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald
     Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured
     Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, referred to as the Board,
     Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad
     Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a
     putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold
     tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986,
     and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period,
     through the Board pursuant to certain agreements.  The
     Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly
     incurred by the class representatives and the putative class
     for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the
     contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with
     respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free
     or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which
     allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts
     dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996.  A motion to
     dismiss has been filed.

   * Finally, JTI has advised RJR and RJR Tobacco of its view
     that, under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR
     and RJR Tobacco are liable for a roughly $1.7 million
     judgment entered in 1998, plus interest and costs, in an
     action filed in Brazil by Lutz Hanneman, a former employee
     of a former RJR Tobacco subsidiary.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
     deny that they are liable for this judgment under the terms
     of the 1999 Purchase Agreement.

Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain
circumstances, they may have these and other unresolved
indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree with JTI as to (1) what
circumstances relating to any such matters may give rise to
indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco, and (2) the
nature and extent of any such obligation.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed
to resolve their differences at a later time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
(RJR, a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.),
seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages.  The class was brought on
behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and
cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of
tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to
develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.  In
December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Tatum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit styled Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of
the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA.  The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from
a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.,
subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as
NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business
and food business.  As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for
the previously related entities had to be divided into two
separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses.
The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the
defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in
the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as
Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts
that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff
requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003.  In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008.  The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.  In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice.  On March 8, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Black" Suit in Feb. 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for February 3, 2014, in the
class action lawsuit captioned Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s April 23, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W) removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March
2006.  In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not
proceed at that time.  A status conference is scheduled for
February 3, 2014.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action lawsuits, RJR
Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending upon the amount
of damages ordered, if any, which could have a material adverse
effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Jones" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in
December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, removed
the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri in February 1999.  The action was brought against the
major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (RJR, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.), by tobacco product
users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers.  The plaintiffs allege that their use of the
defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to
nicotine.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999.

There is currently no activity in this case, according to the
Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Class Suit Stayed Since March 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Young v. American Tobacco Co.,
Inc., has been stayed since March 2013, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company (RJR Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W),
and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (RJR), on behalf of all
residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette
smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes
which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly
suffered injury as a result of that exposure.  The plaintiffs seek
to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive
damages.

In March 2013, the court entered an order staying the case,
including all discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking
cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American
Tobacco Co.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of American
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


SAFEWAY STORES: Class Cert. Denial in Wage and Hour Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Third District, in San
Joaquin, reversed a trial court ruling denying class certification
in a wage and hour action filed by Kenneth Bluford.

Mr. Bluford sought to certify a class of plaintiffs in his action
against his employer, Safeway, Inc.  He claims Safeway violated
statutory and regulatory laws requiring it to provide its
employees with paid rest periods, earned meal periods, and
sufficiently itemized wage statements.

The trial court denied Mr. Bluford's motion to certify a class.
It ruled individual issues predominated over common issues on the
rest period and meal period claims, and that Plaintiff failed to
allege a common injury resulting from the inadequate wage
statements.

On May 8, 2013, the Third Circuit reversed that ruling and ordered
the trial court to grant the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  According to the Third Circuit decision,
insufficient evidence supports the trial court's ruling, as common
issues predominate over individual issues, and the Plaintiff in
fact alleged a common injury resulting from the wage statements.

The Third Circuit remanded the matter to the trial court with
instructions to grant the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class,
subdivided into the three subclasses.  Costs on appeal are awarded
to the Plaintiff.

The case is KENNETH BLUFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAFEWAY
STORES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. C066074.

A copy of the Third Circuit's May 8, 2013 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/GCHpCXfrom Leagle.com.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Google Seeks Indemnification Over Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 2012, an amended class action complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against TeleTech Services Corp. and Google Inc. ("Google"),
as co-defendants. The action alleges that the defendants violated
California Penal Code Section 632 by recording telephone calls
made on behalf of Google to residents in California without
disclosing that the calls might be recorded. The plaintiff seeks
class certification, cash statutory damages and attorney fees.

Pursuant to TeleTech's agreement with Google, Google has made a
claim for full indemnification from TeleTech for all expenses
incurred by Google in connection with the lawsuit. The ultimate
outcome of this litigation cannot reasonably be determined at this
time, according to Teletech Holding Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


TIGER MEDIA: Claims in "Murdeshwar" Shareholder Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The claims in the shareholder class action lawsuit known as
Murdeshwar action have been dismissed, according to Tiger Media,
Inc.'s April 19, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A shareholder complaint was filed in September 2010 against
SearchMedia Holdings Limited, now known as Tiger Media, Inc., the
former officers and directors of Ideation Acquisition Corp.,
SearchMedia Holdings' predecessor, and certain of the SearchMedia
Holdings' officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants") as
a purported class action on behalf of the shareholders of
SearchMedia Holdings in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The Murdeshwar action was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  In April 2011, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint, alleging, among other things, that the directors of
SearchMedia Holdings violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements regarding Ideation's
acquisition of the target company, SearchMedia International
Limited, and by overstating SearchMedia International's financial
results.  The complaint sought certification of a class of
SearchMedia Holdings' shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired SearchMedia Holdings securities between April 1, 2009,
and August 20, 2010, and all persons who were holders of
SearchMedia Holdings on October 2, 2009, and an award of
compensatory damages, among other relief.

In August 2011, the court dismissed the claims pertaining to
alleged misstatements and omissions made about SearchMedia
International's financial results and future prospects, but did
not dismiss the claims regarding the alleged misstatements and
omissions in Ideation's proxy statement.

In September 2011, after attending a mediation, SearchMedia
Holdings and certain of the individual Defendants (Robert Fried,
Phillip Frost, Rao Uppaluri, Steven Rubin, Glenn Halpryn, Thomas
Beier, David Moskowitz and Shawn Gold) (the "Settling Defendants")
reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs.

Under the terms of the settlement, SearchMedia Holdings' D&O
insurer agreed to pay $2.75 million in exchange for a release of
the claims asserted against the Settling Defendants by the
plaintiffs and the putative class members.  SearchMedia Holdings
and the other Settling Defendants did not admit to any wrongdoing.
The settlement does not include a release of the plaintiffs'
claims against SearchMedia International or Defendants Garbo Lee,
Qinying Liu, Earl Yen, Jennifer Huang and Paul Conway, who were
not served with the amended complaint.  In January 2012, the court
dismissed without prejudice the claims against these remaining
Defendants for the plaintiffs' failure to timely effect service on
them.

In April 2012, the court held a final fairness hearing on the
settlement.  There were no objections to the settlement.  The
court signed a final judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the claims against the Settling Defendants with
prejudice.

Tiger Media, Inc., formerly known as SearchMedia Holdings Limited
-- http://www.tigermedia.com/-- is a Cayman Islands exempted
company headquartered in Shanghai, China.  Tiger Media is a multi-
platform media company operating primarily in the out-of-home
advertising industry.  The Company's outdoor billboards, which are
mostly built on rooftops and with good visibility from long
distances, complement its network of LCD screen displays, which
are built on the street level that captivates eye-level awareness.


                             *********

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  * * *