CAR_Public/130521.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 99

                             Headlines


ADT CORP: Obtains Court Approval of Dealer Litigation Settlement
ADT CORP: Has Deal to Settle Suit Over "Unsolicited" Calls
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: Claims v. Yucaipa in Securities Suit Junked
BABY PRODUCTS: Fox Rotschild Discusses Third Circuit Ruling
BANK OF IRELAND: FCA Urged to Take Action on Mortgage Rate Hike

CANADA: Injured Soldiers File Class Action Over Veterans' Benefits
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Stock Suit Over Northera Drug
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Still Investor Suit Over Northera in N.C.
COMCAST CABLE: Judge Allows Arbitration in Data-Retention Suit
COPANO ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Litigation

ELETROBRAS: Hearing in Environmental Suit on May 21
FORD MOTOR: Faces Second Class Action Over Fuel Economy Claims
GOLDEN CORRAL: Customers' Lawyer to File Norovirus Class Action
GOOGLE INC: 2nd Cir. Probes Authors' Class Action Reasoning
GUAM: Thousands of Taxpayers Fail to Claim Tax Refund Checks

HANSEN MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action
HEARST CORP: Judge Tosses Unpaid Interns' Class Action
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Class Action Over Autonomy Deal
JEVIC TRANSPORTATION: Court Trims Claims in WARN Act Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Misleading Claims on Aveeno Line

JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Orders Disclosure of Witnesses' Identities
MASSACHUSETTS: Landmark Class Action Disability Suit Settled
MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care Children Abuse
MASTERCARD INC: Paid $726MM to US Merchant Class Deal in Dec.
MASTERCARD INC: Revised Deal Okayed in April in "Attridge" Case

MASTERCARD INC: Court Dismisses ATM Operators' Complaint
MASTERCARD INC: Still Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y
MASTERCARD INC: Seeks Final Okay of Deal in Merchant Class Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Class Sought in Canadian Credit Card Fees
MATTEL INC: MGA's Bid to Reassert Trade Secret Claim Pending

MERCK & CO: Sanford Heisler Files Discrimination Class Action
NCAA: Judge Allows Depositions of Big Ten, Horizon Commissioners
PET VALU: Aird & Berlis Discusses Ontario Superior Court Ruling
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Appeal v. Principal Life 401(k) Suit Junked
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Cruise/Mullaney ERISA Suit

RADIOSHACK CORP: Anticipates Amendment of "Brookler" Complaint
RADIOSHACK CORP: Bid to Reconsider "Ordonez" Suit Order Pending
RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Final OK of "Sosinov" Suit Settlement
RADIOSHACK CORP: Negotiates Terms of Deal to Settle FACTA Suits
RITE AID: Assistant Managers' Litigation Has Concluded

RITE AID: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in "Indergit" Suit
RITE AID: Still Defends Wage and Hour Class Suits in California
SIX FLAGS: Settles 2008 Viral Outbreak Class Action for $1.3-Mil.
TELETECH SERVICES: Continues to Defend Suit Over "Recorded" Calls
TIGER BRANDS: Mukaddan Appeals Ruling on Class Representative Bid

TRAVELERS COS: "Safeco" Suit Returned to Illinois District Court
TRAVELERS COS: Still Awaits Appellate Ruling in Asbestos Suits
TRAVELZOO INC: N.Y. Court Junks Stock Suit; Plaintiffs Appeal
UNITED NATIONS: May Face Class Action Over Haiti Cholera Outbreak
US AIRWAYS: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With AMR

WELLS FARGO: Seeks to Cancel Lawsuit's Class-Action Status
WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Professor Unveils Data on Job Placement Study
XEROX CORP: Shareholders Appeal Court Ruling in Conn. Lawsuit

* GOAL Sees Rise in Non-US Securities Class Action Settlements
* Ontario Mulls Rules to Address Class Action Limitation Period
* SEC Faces Pressure From Mandatory Arbitration Clause Critics


                             *********


ADT CORP: Obtains Court Approval of Dealer Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, a number of former dealers and related parties filed
lawsuits against The ADT Corporation in the United States and in
other countries, including a class action lawsuit filed in the
District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging breach of
contract and other claims related to the Company's decision to
terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003.

In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in the
Company's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key claims.
Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in
the Company's favor in October 2011.

The parties agreed to settle this matter in April 2012 with no
cash consideration being paid by either side, and the settlement
was approved by the court.


ADT CORP: Has Deal to Settle Suit Over "Unsolicited" Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation increased its legal reserves by $15 million
after obtaining preliminary approval of the settlement of a suit
over alleged "robocalls."

The Company has been named as a defendant in two putative class
actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons
who claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls" in
contravention of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  These lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs seeking class
action status and monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who
allegedly received such unsolicited calls, claiming that millions
of calls were made by third party entities on the Company's
behalf.

The Company asserts that such entities were not retained by, nor
authorized to make calls on behalf of, the Company. The Company
has entered into an agreement to settle this litigation, and the
District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 19, 2013. During fiscal year 2012, the Company increased
its legal reserves by $15 million to reflect this development. The
settlement is subject to the completion of final approval by the
District Court.


ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: Claims v. Yucaipa in Securities Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs City of New Haven Employees' Retirement System and
Plumbers and Pipefitters Locals 502 & 633 Pension Trust Fund filed
a federal securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P)
between July 23, 2009 and December 10, 2010.  The Plaintiffs
alleged that, throughout the Class Period, the A&P Defendants
falsely stated that A&P was making progress in implementing its
turnaround initiatives but the truth was that A&P's operational
and financial conditions were continuing to rapidly deteriorate,
and the Company's turnaround efforts were constrained by its high
rate of cash burn and worsening liquidity crisis.  On December 12,
2010, A&P confirmed that it filed a petition for bankruptcy
protection under Chapter 11.

On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
against Christian W. E. Haub, Eric Claus, Brenda M. Galgano,
Ronald Marshall, Samuel Martin, and Frederic Brace (the A&P
Defendants); and The Yucaipa Companies LLC and Ronald Burkle (the
Yucaipa Defendants).  The Amended Complaint asserts two causes of
action: (1) Count 1: violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5; and (2) Count 2: violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The A&P Defendants and the Yucaipa Defendants moved to dismiss
both counts.

On April 30, 2013, District Judge William J. Martini granted in
part, and denied in part the A&P Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The A&P Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 1 is denied with
respect to Defendants Claus, Galgano, Haub, and Brace. The motion
to dismiss Count 1 is granted with respect to Defendants Marshall
and Martin, as they were not responsible for any of the
misstatements or omissions, ruled Judge Martini.  The A&P
Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 2 is denied as to Claus,
Galgano, Haub, and Brace, and granted as to Marshall and Martin.

With respect to the Yucaipa Defendants, the Plaintiffs raise two
different theories of liability under Rule 10b-5. The Court finds
that both theories fail because the Plaintiffs failed to allege
scienter. Because the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for an
underlying Section 10(b) violation, the Plaintiffs cannot state a
claim under Section 20(a) either.

Accordingly, the Yucaipa Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted,
and the claims against Yucaipa are dismissed with prejudice, Judge
Martini concluded.

The case is RICKY DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN W.E. HAUB, et al.,
Defendants, Civ. No. 2:11-cv-05196 (WJM), (D. N.J.).

A copy of the District Court's April 30, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/0kIxysfrom Leagle.com.

                  About Great Atlantic & Pacific

Founded in 1859, Montvale, New Jersey-based Great Atlantic &
Pacific is a supermarket retailer, operating under a variety of
well-known trade names, or "banners" across the mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States.

A&P and its affiliates filed Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Case No. 10-24549) on Dec. 12, 2010, in White Plains, New York.
Before filing for bankruptcy in 2010, A&P operated 429 stores in
eight states and the District of Columbia under the following
trade names: A&P, Waldbaum's, Pathmark, Pathmark Sav-a-Center,
Best Cellars, The Food Emporium, Super Foodmart, Super Fresh and
Food Basics.  A&P had 41,000 employees prior to the bankruptcy
filing.

In its petition, A&P reported total assets of $2.5 billion and
liabilities of $3.2 billion as of Sept. 11, 2010.

Paul M. Basta, Esq., James H.M. Sprayregen, Esq., and Ray C.
Schrock, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, in New York, and James J.
Mazza, Jr., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in Chicago, Illinois,
served as counsel to the Debtors.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC
acted as the claims and notice agent.  Lazard Freres & Co. LLC
served as the financial advisor.  Huron Consulting Group served as
management consultant.  Dennis F. Dunne, Esq., Matthew S. Barr,
Esq., and Abhilash M. Raval, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy LLP, represented the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order Feb. 27, 2012, confirming a
First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization filed Feb. 17, 2012.
A&P consummated its financial restructuring and emerged from
Chapter 11 as a privately held company in March 2012.

A&P sold or closed stores during the bankruptcy proceedings.  It
emerged from bankruptcy with 320 supermarkets.  Among others, A&P
sold 12 Super-Fresh stores in the Baltimore-Washington area for
$37.83 million, plus the value of inventory.  Thirteen other
locations didn't attract buyers at auction and were closed mid-
July 2011.

Mount Kellett Capital Management LP, The Yucaipa Companies LLC and
investment funds managed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.,
provided $490 million in debt and equity financing to sponsor
A&P's reorganization plan and complete its balance sheet
restructuring.  JP Morgan and Credit Suisse arranged a
$645 million exit financing facility.


BABY PRODUCTS: Fox Rotschild Discusses Third Circuit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to Fox Rothschild LLP, consider the following scenario
-- your business is one of many sued in a class action lawsuit for
allegedly conspiring to overcharge consumers of baby products.
After five years of costly litigation, all of the defendants
decide to settle.  They collectively agree to pay $35.5 million
into a settlement fund.

Of that amount, only $3 million actually goes to allegedly injured
consumers.  Fully six times that amount, $18.5 million, is to be
paid to disinterested charities who were uninvolved in the
lawsuit.  The remaining money, a stunning $14 million, will be
paid to the attorneys who brought the suit, a figure justified by
the false assumption that counsel provided a significant benefit
to the class, even though the class -- on whose behalf the case
was filed -- is set to receive less than 10 percent of the
settlement fund.

A made-up scenario? Hardly.  In fact, these are the actual facts
presented to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In
re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-1165 (E.D. Pa.
2013).  Until recently, a court would likely have found this to be
permissible and approved the class settlement.  However, in its
recent decision, the Third Circuit recognized that class counsel
are not entitled to a windfall, particularly where so much of the
settlement fund is paid to disinterested charities and so little
to the plaintiff class.  The upshot of the court's decision is to
make it more difficult for plaintiffs' class action lawyers to
receive such huge fees, paid by legitimate businesses and their
insurers.  As a result, class actions are now arguably less
attractive to bring since attorney fees must now be reduced to
discount payments made to disinterested parties and to more
accurately reflect the actual benefit provided to the class.

The problem is an old one.  Many businesses have been vexed by
class action litigation, frequently brought by consumers who have
suffered de minimis "injury" (if any), but who seek millions of
dollars from defendants on behalf of similarly situated class
members.  These cases almost always settle.  As part of the
settlement, defendants frequently agree to pay significant sums to
the class, often millions of dollars.  For their efforts, class
counsel usually reap outsized fees, paid by the defendants based
on a percentage of the recovery they achieved "for the class."

However, significant portions of the settlement proceeds --
sometimes in excess of 50 percent -- are never paid to the class.
There are a variety of reasons for this.  Some class members are
difficult to identify. Some cannot be located.  Others may choose
not to participate in what can be a cumbersome claims process.
Still others may not feel aggrieved and, therefore, decline to
accept the "benefit" conferred upon them.

When this happens, courts need to decide what to do with the
unclaimed settlement funds. Over time, courts have developed a
variety of approaches to address the issue.  One of the most
controversial is to pay the unclaimed proceeds to a charity.  This
approach is based on an extension of an old trust doctrine, known
as cy pres.  Invoking this doctrine, courts allow unclaimed
settlement money to be paid to a charity whose mission is said to
be "as near as possible" to the concerns of the injured class.

Although popular, courts and commentators have raised numerous
questions respecting the use of cy pres awards in the class action
context.  One persistent criticism is that the fees that
plaintiffs lawyers receive are unduly excessive, particularly when
courts view the cy pres distribution as a "benefit to the class"
to be considered when calculating the fee earned by class counsel.
This very concern was addressed by the Third Circuit, which
provided class action targets with long overdue relief.

Although Baby Products held that cy pres awards are
constitutionally permissible, the court did not mask its
discomfort with payments to nonparties, deeming them "troubling"
and repeatedly referring to this method of distributing settlement
proceeds as being plainly "inferior to a direct distribution to
the class."  The court noted that such payments "only imperfectly
serve the purpose of the underlying causes of action -- to
compensate the class members."  The court also endorsed the view
that cy pres payments frequently provide the class with an
"indirect benefit that is at best attenuated and at worst
illusory."

This case represents a potentially significant victory for
businesses plagued by consumer class action lawsuits.  Recognizing
that "class counsel, and not their client, may be the foremost
beneficiaries of the settlement" in consumer class actions, the
Third Circuit concluded that fees paid to class counsel must be
based on the actual benefit conferred upon the class and that any
cy pres distribution should be "discounted."  The court's
reasoning is instructive. It was concerned that "inclusion of a cy
pres distribution may increase a settlement fund, and with it
attorney fees, without increasing the direct benefit to the
class," thereby creating "a potential conflict of interest between
absent class members and their counsel."  Quoting U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in International Precious Metals
v. Waters, 530 U.S. 1223, 1224 (2000), the court further expressed
the concern that cy pres awards can "'decouple class counsel's
financial incentives from those of the class,'" thereby
undermining the class device "'by providing defendants with a
powerful means to entic[e] class counsel to settle lawsuits in a
manner detrimental to the class.'"

The Baby Products court then reversed the $14 million award of
counsel fees and instructed the lower court to determine with
"reasonable accuracy the distribution of funds that will result
from the claims process."  The lower court was also directed to
determine whether the amount actually paid to class members
reflects a failure of class counsel to represent adequately the
interests of the entire class.  The court instructed that "barring
sufficient justification, cy pres awards should generally
represent a small percentage of total settlement funds."  Perhaps
most critically, since cy pres awards are "inferior" to the direct
award of benefits actually conferred upon absent class members,
the Third Circuit directed courts to discount the amount of the cy
pres award when considering class counsel's fee request.

What does this mean for businesses and class action targets?
Potentially, a lot. Skeptics of the class device have long pointed
out that such cases frequently result in little monetary benefit
to the class even though counsel who file them enjoy substantial
fees.  By expressly preferring direct payments to injured class
members and urging lower courts to "discount" cy pres awards in
determining counsel's fee, the Third Circuit made it clear that
the true purpose of the class device is to benefit allegedly
injured class members.

As a result of Baby Products, lawyers who represent class
plaintiffs will have to undertake the difficult task of actually
locating class members and negotiating a settlement that truly
benefits them, rather than some unknown, disinterested charity.
This imposes significant additional burdens on class counsel.
Those who fail to carry them, or who seek significant cy pres
awards from defendants, will find their own fees reduced.  As
such, the expected downward pressure on fees awarded to plaintiffs
counsel in consumer class action cases with significant cy pres
awards may provide a disincentive to filing such suits, since the
rewards associated with doing so are likely to be reduced


BANK OF IRELAND: FCA Urged to Take Action on Mortgage Rate Hike
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Dale, writing for Money Marketing, reports that Bank of
Ireland borrowers leading a class action against the bank's
tracker mortgage rate rise this month are calling again on the
Financial Conduct Authority to take action.

On May 1, 13,500 BoI borrowers saw their tracker mortgages
increase.  Around half are buy-to-let borrowers who saw rates
increase from 1.75 per cent above base rate to 4.49 per cent above
base.  Residential borrowers will see their rates rise in two
stages, firstly to 2.49 per cent on May 1 and then to 3.99 per
cent on October 1.

The bank blames the rise on increasing capital requirements.  In
March, FCA chief executive Martin Wheatley said the rise is fair
and he has "no concerns" about it.

More than 250 borrowers are pushing ahead with a class action
against the bank after receiving "very positive" legal opinion
about their chances of claiming damages.  They claim the change in
mortgage contract is unfair and should not stand.

Under the class action borrowers are being split into amateur and
professional landlords.  Amateur landlords, who have other jobs
and own only one or two properties, may be deemed consumers.

Law Department solicitor Justin Selig, who is leading the action,
will write to the FCA and Office for Fair Trading to ask them to
take on the consumer case.

Mr. Selig says: "The FCA should take proceedings against the bank
to say the terms in the mortgage contract are unfair.

"I do not think it has really looked at the documents we have got
so we will put a file together in detail and explain the legal
arguments behind the action."

Professional landlords can sue for damages and if it proceeds to
litigation they will claim for the extra 2.74 per cent interest
for the rest of the term.

Property118.com owner Mark Alexander, who is part of the action,
says: "We are very confident because there is plenty of case law,
particularly for consumers, comparable to this action."


CANADA: Injured Soldiers File Class Action Over Veterans' Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that six soldiers disabled from injuries
sustained in Afghanistan were in B.C. Supreme Court on May 8 to
attempt to launch a class action lawsuit against the federal
government over veterans benefits.

Daniel Scott, one of four B.C. men involved in the six-person
suit, lost a kidney, his spleen and part of his pancreas after he
was hit by an explosion in Afghanistan.

Veterans Affairs awarded him a lump-sum payment of C$41,000 for
the injuries.  His father, Jim Scott, says the amount is an
insult.

"Basically, what the government is doing is liquidating their
liability by saying, 'We took care of you.  We gave you a training
course.  We gave you some money.  Now go away,'" Mr. Scott told
CBC News.

Mr. Scott says the goal of the class action suit is to improve
benefits for all soldiers injured and disabled in Canadian
military actions.  He says the proceedings that began May 8 are
"big" as they will force the government to start responding to the
claims.

"It's big in a sense that this is where the government's making
it's big move to have it shut down," he said.

The statement of claim, filed in October in B.C. Supreme Court,
alleges the government violated the constitutional rights of the
soldiers by discriminating against disabled people financially.
It also alleged that by passing the New Veterans Charter, the
government failed in its fiduciary duty to support veterans, and
that it broke the constitutional principle of the honor of the
Crown, by failing to keep the social promises Canada made to
soldiers it sends into combat.

The six soldiers call the action a David versus Goliath case, but
are hopeful that the action will be certified and that many other
injured soldiers will join them.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Stock Suit Over Northera Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. continues to face a
lawsuit over its development of Northera for the treatment of
symptomatic neurogenic OH, according to the company's 10-Q filing
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to the Company's development of Northera for the treatment
of symptomatic neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs. Following consolidation of the three
lawsuits and the appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated
complaint was filed on October 5, 2012, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from November 3, 2008 through March 28,
2012. The Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit but are unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

On May 2, 2012, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the members of
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd.'s board of directors as
of the date of the lawsuit.  The complaint generally alleges that,
from at least June 2011 through February 2012, the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and otherwise caused harm to the
Company in connection with various statements related to the
development of Northera for the treatment of Neurogenic OH and the
likelihood of FDA approval.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On June 25, 2012, the Court of Chancery entered an Order staying
the action until the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina has ruled upon the motion to dismiss that the
Company and its officers have filed on November 16, 2012 in
response to the consolidated complaint in the class action. The
Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit but are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Still Investor Suit Over Northera in N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. continues to face a
shareholder lawsuit over its Drug Application for Northera
(droxidopa) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina.

Chelsea Therapeutics said in its 10-Q filing for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013: "Following the receipt of the CRL [complete
response letter] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]
regarding the NDA [Northera Drug Application] for Northera
(droxidopa) in March 2012 and the subsequent decline of the price
of our common stock, two purported class action lawsuits were
filed on April 4, 2012 and another purported class action lawsuit
was filed on May 1, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina against us and certain of our
executive officers.

"The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to our development of Northera for the treatment of
symptomatic neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval.

"The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs. Following consolidation of the three
lawsuits and the appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated
complaint was filed on October 5, 2012, on behalf of purchasers of
our common stock from November 3, 2008 through March 28, 2012. We
and our officers intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit
but are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss at this time.

"On May 2, 2012, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the members of our
board of directors as of the date of the lawsuit.  The complaint
generally alleges that, from at least June 2011 through February
2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and otherwise
caused harm to the Company in connection with various statements
related to our development of Northera for the treatment of
Neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval.

"The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
other costs.  On June 25, 2012, the Court of Chancery entered an
Order staying the action until the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina has ruled upon the motion to
dismiss that we and our officers have filed on November 16, 2012
in response to the consolidated complaint in the class action. We
and our officers intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit
but are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss at this time."


COMCAST CABLE: Judge Allows Arbitration in Data-Retention Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois judge
has allowed Comcast Cable Communications LLC to push into
arbitration a proposed nationwide class action accusing it of
illegally retaining customers' personal information, including
Social Security and credit card numbers, long after they have
canceled their subscriptions.  Judge Robert W. Gettleman rejected
arguments by plaintiffs Steve Bayer and Aaron Lloyd that the
validity of an arbitration clause in their contracts with Comcast
should be decided by the court.


COPANO ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Copano Energy, L.L.C., disclosed in its April 22, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to, among other things,
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 29, 2013, by
and among the Company, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc., a Delaware corporation and the general partner
of Kinder Morgan and Javelina Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Kinder
Morgan providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Copano
with Copano surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Kinder
Morgan.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC
by Copano on March 29, 2013, three putative class action lawsuits
challenging the proposed transaction have been filed on behalf of
Copano unitholders and are currently pending in Delaware state
court, Texas state court and federal court respectively.  The
actions are captioned In re Copano Energy, L.L.C. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 8284-VCN (Del. Ch.), Schultes v. Copano
Energy, L.L.C., et al., No. 06966 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris County)
and Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al., No. 4:13-CV-00540
(S.D. Tex.).

On April 22, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Copano and the other named defendants in
the actions entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs in the actions to settle the cases.

The defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement under applicable laws; however, to
avoid the risk that the litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize
the expense of defending such action, Copano has agreed, pursuant
to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Copano's unitholders.  In the
event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled by the court to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  In the event a
stipulation of settlement is entered into, written notice to
unitholders will be provided, which notice will contain pertinent
information concerning the judicial approval process and the
rights of class members with respect to that process.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, among
other claims, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
unitholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
Copano or its successor, which the defendants may oppose.  Copano
or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the court.  There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

Houston, Texas-based Copano Energy, L.L.C. --
http://www.copano.com/-- was formed in August 2001 as a Delaware
limited liability company to acquire entities operating under the
Copano name since 1992, and to serve as a holding company for the
Company's operating subsidiaries.  The Company's subsidiaries
provide midstream services to natural gas producers, including
gathering, transportation and processing of natural gas,
fractionation and transportation of natural gas liquids and other
related services.


ELETROBRAS: Hearing in Environmental Suit on May 21
---------------------------------------------------
A May 21, 2013 case hearing is set among experts and all parties
in a suit against Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - ELETROBRAS
over alleged environmental damages caused by Eletrobras Chesf.

"We are required to comply with strict environmental laws and
regulations that subject us to numerous environmental legal and
administrative proceedings filed against us," the Company said in
a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In 2002 and 2003, two associations of the community of Cabeco
brought independent class actions regarding environmental damages
caused by Eletrobras Chesf. The Cabeco community is located in a
river island in the estuary of the Sao Francisco River. Both
associations alleged that the hydroelectric plants disturbed the
normal flow of the river and resulted in a decline in fishing
activity and the gradual disappearance of the river island. The
court held that any motion filed for an interlocutory appeal must
be postponed until a final judgment is delivered.

"On August 9, 2010, we lodged a motion requesting the
clarification of this decision. This motion was rejected in
September 2010. We subsequently filed a request for
reconsideration of the decision that the interlocutory appeal be
postponed, which was also rejected by the judge on October 18,
2010. The judge of the case scheduled a hearing among all parties
and experts on May 21, 2013 to define the deadline and scope of
the work to be performed by the experts," the Company said.

"We have not made any provision in respect of this litigation as
we consider the risk of an unfavorable decision on this lawsuit to
be possible, and total amounts involved are of R$368.5 million and
R$309.1 million."


FORD MOTOR: Faces Second Class Action Over Fuel Economy Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bettencourt, writing to The Globe and Mail, reports that
Ford is facing increasing pressure in the United States about
its fuel economy claims for the hybrid versions of the Fusion and
C-Max with the filing of a second lawsuit in Pennsylvania last
month, following a similar class action lawsuit in California.
This comes although the company is only using government-
sanctioned EPA figures.

Environmental Protection Agency figures suggest the vehicles will
attain 47 miles per U.S. gallon in both city and highway driving,
and figure prominently in Ford advertising, as do comparisons with
the less-efficient EPA ratings listed for the Toyota Prius.  The
Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid provide its owners significantly
worse fuel economy than promised, Bloomberg reported recently,
citing figures averaging 38.5 mpg submitted on a fuel economy
tracking website.

Detailed tests in publications such as Consumer Reports, The Wall
Street Journal, Motor Trend and the cleanmpg.com website on the
C-Max Hybrid all resulted in figures averaging significantly lower
than the official EPA numbers.

On the EPA's fueleconomy.gov website, those questioned 47 mpg
figures translate to an average of 5.0 litres/100 km, using the
EPA's tougher and more modern five-cycle testing methods.  In
Canada, using a less stringent two-cycle test, both vehicles
attain even lower official Canadian government fuel consumption
ratings of 4.0 litres/100 km city and 4.1 highway, with these
figures also featured prominently in Canadian advertising for
these vehicles.

A Ford of Canada official recently said that no lawsuits have been
filed in Canada by owners unhappy with any discrepancy between
their observed fuel consumption and the official figures, but
wouldn't comment on the lawsuits in the United States, nor on the
EPA's ongoing investigation into their accuracy.  It was such an
investigation by the EPA that found overstated fuel economy claims
by South Korean companies Hyundai and Kia, leading them to launch
an unprecedented payback campaign that gave owners of affected
vehicles a pre-paid credit card with an annual amount for the
extra fuel used, plus a 15 per cent convenience top-up.

"It's not our intention to put out numbers that are incorrect, but
you have to keep in mind that in the real world, you have to
change your driving habits to achieve maximum fuel efficiency,
which is why we have the brake coach and other technologies in
there," said Christine Hollander, Ford of Canada communications
manager.

Would following all such car coaching lead to the stated 4.0/4.1
Canadian fuel efficiency numbers? "I haven't tested that, so I
can't comment on it," said Ms. Hollander.

In an interview earlier this year, Ford of Canada CEO Dianne Craig
stressed that the firm tested its cars carefully in both
countries, and is working with the Canadian government to bring in
the more accurate five-cycle EPA test.  "We follow exactly to the
letter of the law with the EPA, and we're very confident in our
process with the EPA, as well as Transport Canada, and in the fact
we're following the letter of the law," she said.  "There is more
variability with hybrids, but we're really confident in our
processes."

The hyper-miling crew at the cleanmpg.com website found ways to
coax the C-Max to numbers greater than the EPA's figures in one
extreme efficiency city driving leg, performed in order to extract
the highest possible mpg number from the C-Max, a Prius V and
Prius liftback during a comparison test in California this past
February.  In this extreme city test, as in all its other highway
and city tests, both Prius models finished on top of the C-Max in
the fuel consumption measurements.  It therefore concluded that
with such techniques it may be possible for Ford to achieve its
EPA numbers, but that typical driving suggests lower numbers than
found by the EPA.


GOLDEN CORRAL: Customers' Lawyer to File Norovirus Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Wolfson, writing for Star-Tribune, reports that a lawyer
representing Golden Corral customers plans to file a new lawsuit
in connection with a norovirus outbreak at the Casper restaurant.

A federal judge dismissed two similar lawsuits in April after
jurisdictional issues arose, said Casper attorney Jason Ochs.  The
matter will now be heard in Natrona County District Court.

"The issue is going to be whether certain standards in this
community were breached," Mr. Ochs said on May 7.  "Who is better
to decide that then the people of the community?"

Jeff Meyer, the attorney representing franchise owner Golden DBL,
Inc. said on May 7 he could not comment on the reasons why the
federal lawsuits were dismissed.  He did note that, generally
speaking, a dismissal without prejudice allows cases to be filed
again in another court.

Golden Corral attorney Scott McGath did not respond to a message
seeking comment.

The legal action stems from a December outbreak of norovirus at
Golden Corral, a buffet-style restaurant on Casper's east side.
Health officials identified more the 300 cases of foodborne
illness, but said the actual number of sick people was likely much
higher.

Norovirus is a contagious virus that can cause stomach pain,
vomiting and diarrhea.

The federal lawsuits, which were filed in February, alleged the
restaurant allowed employees to remain at work while they were
ill.  The Wyoming Department of Health found 21 employees who
worked while exhibiting symptoms of a gastrointestinal illness.

One class-action lawsuit sought reimbursement for all the people
who ate at Golden Corral between Nov. 20, about three weeks after
the restaurant opened, and Dec. 13, when owners voluntarily closed
the business for cleaning and inspection.  A second suit, filed a
few days after the first, focused on individual people who were
allegedly sickened after dining at the buffet.

A judge dismissed the cases based on a mutual request from
Mr. Ochs and attorneys representing the Golden Corral corporation
and the franchise owner, federal court records show.  The suits
were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could be filed
again.

Attorneys did not specify in their request why they wanted the
case dismissed.  U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson's April 5
order also gave no indication.

Mr. Ochs attributed the dismissal to jurisdictional issues. The
plaintiffs originally believed the franchise owner was a Colorado
company.  In fact, the company is a Wyoming business.  Because
both the plaintiff and the defendant are from Wyoming, federal
court is not the proper venue for the case, Mr. Ochs explained.

"It had nothing to do with the merits of the case or any type of
settlement or anything like that," he said.

Mr. Ochs said he expects to ultimately file multiple lawsuits in
state court based on the outbreak, but didn't yet know exactly how
many.

"That's only because we continue to get calls from people who want
to be included," he said.

He declined to say how many potential clients have reached out to
his law firm.


GOOGLE INC: 2nd Cir. Probes Authors' Class Action Reasoning
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Vaughan, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. federal
appeals court on May 8 questioned the reasoning behind a class-
action lawsuit against Google over its effort to digitize millions
of books, suggesting that many authors could benefit from the
project.

Billions of dollars are at stake in the long-running dispute, in
which The Authors Guild as well as groups representing
photographers and graphic artists argue that the Google Books
project amounts to massive copyright infringement.

Google is appealing a lower court's ruling allowing the plaintiffs
to pursue a class-action lawsuit rather than file claims
individually.

If the 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals bars the plaintiffs from
suing collectively, it likely would be much harder for them to win
a large damages award against Google.

Circuit Judge Pierre Leval, one of three judges hearing Google's
appeal, said the company's project could benefit many authors.  It
could particularly help writers whose works are more obscure, by
telling readers where they could buy their books, he said.

"A lot of authors would say, 'Hey, that's great for me,'" Judge
Leval said.

Robert LaRocca, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that a survey
of class members that Google conducted was flawed.  That survey,
plaintiffs said in court papers, showed that 500 authors, or 58
percent of those surveyed, approved of Google's project.

"We think the vast majority of the class support us," he said.

                         What's Fair Use?

The case derives from the Mountain View, California-based
company's 2004 agreement with several research libraries to
digitize books with a goal of helping researchers and the general
public find material.

Google has since scanned more than 20 million books and posted
snippets of more than 4 million online.  The project could have
"enormous value for our culture," said Circuit Judge Barrington
Parker.

"This is something that has never happened in the history of
mankind," he said.

Google argues the practice constituted "fair use," an exception
under U.S. copyright law because it only provided portions of the
works online.  Plaintiffs disagree, saying the verbatim display of
the copied work does not substantially differ from its original
form.

Seth Waxman, a lawyer for Google, told the appeals court that
based on the plaintiffs' argument that the company should pay $750
for each book it copied, that would amount to more than $3 billion
in damages.

Judge Leval and the third judge on the panel, Circuit Judge Jose
Cabranes, suggested the case may have gotten ahead of itself.

Instead of reversing the lower court's ruling allowing the case to
go forward as a class action, the two judges asked lawyers for
both sides why they shouldn't send the case back to the district
court to rule on Google's "fair use" defense first, then decide
later on the class's validity.

"I wonder if you're out of sequence," Judge Leval said to
Mr. Waxman.

The Google lawyer countered that the class encompasses vastly
different types of work, from poetry to mathematical books.
Arguing its "fair use" defense against such variety would be like
arguing "with one hand tied behind our back."

The judges reserved judgment on the matter.

"The investment we have made in Google Books benefits readers and
writers alike, helping unlock the great pool of knowledge
contained in millions of books," Maggie Shiels, a spokeswoman for
Google, said in a statement.

The case is Google Inc v. Authors Guild Inc et al, 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-3200.

According to Publishers Weekly, the long-running case over
Google's library book scanning has been stayed since September,
2012, pending the Second Circuit's review of Judge Denny Chin's
decision.

Google had initially argued that the Authors Guild case should not
be certified as a class action largely because "individual issues
predominate over common ones as to copyright ownership and fair
use."  In his May 31, 2012 ruling, however, Judge Chin rejected
that argument.

"Class action is the superior method for resolving this
litigation," Judge Chin ruled, concluding that, "every potential
class member's claim arises out of Google's uniform, widespread
practice of copying entire books without permission of the
copyright holder and displaying snippets of those books for
search."  Whether Google's wholesale scanning constitutes
copyright infringement, he noted, can be assessed "without making
individualized considerations."  Because Google "treated the
copyright holders as a group," Judge Chin found, "copyright
holders should be able to litigate on a group basis."

If the Second Circuit does end up reversing Judge Chin's decision,
the case would not necessarily be over for the Authors Guild.  As
Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken told PW last year, the
case could still proceed on the basis of the three-named
plaintiffs.  And, the AG could of course appeal a potential loss
at the Second Circuit to the Supreme Court.  If the Second Circuit
affirms Chin's decision, look for Chin to push a quick trial
schedule, as the judge has expressed his desire to conclude the
case, which is now over 7 years old.

A reversal, however, would be a serious blow to the AG's case, and
would certainly serve as a catalyst to settle.  Since the stay,
Federal judge Harold Baer has ruled in the Authors Guild vs.
HathiTrust that Google's scan program was a clear fair use under
the copyright law, which holds major ramifications for the Authors
Guild's case against Google.  "The fair use ruling is
substantially applicable to Google," noted New York Law School's
James Grimmelmann, after the HathiTrust decision.  "Yes, Google is
commercial, but the transformative use and market harm points [in
Baer's decision] stand, and that's enough for a solid fair use
victory."  The Authors Guild, meanwhile, has also appealed Baer's
ruling in the HathiTrust case, also to the Second Circuit.

A reversal by the Second Circuit on the class action question
could, perhaps most importantly, affect the case's financing for
the Authors Guild.  "The only prospect to recover the lawsuit's
costs would be to hope for a decisive victory followed by fee-
shifting," Mr. Grimmelmann added, "while at the same time the
plaintiffs would be exposed to the prospect of having to pay
Google's (by now quite significant) legal fees if they lost."

            Google Asks 2nd Cir. to Reject Class Action

Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Google Inc.
asked an appeals court to reject class-action status for a lawsuit
over digital books that a company lawyer said includes a request
for more than $3 billion in damages.

According to CNET's Shara Tibken, lawyers for the two companies on
May 8 presented their oral arguments in an appeal hearing related
to class action status for the suit.  A judge in the Second
Circuit Court in New York last year had granted the Authors Guild
the ability to sue Google as a group, but the search giant on
May 8 argued that such status shouldn't be granted.

CNET reports that the company in the past has cited a survey that
showed more than half of the authors polled approved of Google
scanning their books so the content could be searched online.  A
full 45 percent said they had already seen or expect to see higher
demand for their books as a result of the scanning.  And 19
percent said they've benefited financially from the scanning.

"The investment we have made in Google Books benefits readers and
writers alike, helping unlock the great pool of knowledge
contained in millions of books," a Google spokesperson said on
May 8.

According to CNET, there has been a lot of speculation over the
years about the amount of damages Google could face.  The Authors
Guild has been looking for payment of $750 per "infringed book."
Based on the $3 billion number cited on May 8, that encompasses
only about a fifth of the more than 20 million books Google has
scanned.

Google and the Authors Guild have been battling about digitizing
books for nearly a decade.  The Authors Guild in 2005 filed suit
and said that Google's book scanning constitutes copyright
infringement.  In 2008, the two sides reached an agreement whereby
Google would have paid authors and publishers $125 million in
return for scanning and selling their copyrighted works.

However, that settlement was thrown out in 2011 by New York
federal district court Judge Denny Chin, who ruled that it would
have given Google an unfair advantage over its competitors.  In
May of last year, Judge Chin gave the Authors Guild the legal
go-ahead to proceed with its class action suit.  In August,
however, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that
Google could appeal Judge Chin's ruling.

The oral arguments on May 8 were the next step in Google's appeal
process.  The main case over the book scanning has been on hold
until the class action status is resolved, according to CNET.


GUAM: Thousands of Taxpayers Fail to Claim Tax Refund Checks
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Daily News reports that two people with the same first,
middle and last names and village of residence as the lead
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit over late tax refund
payments have unclaimed tax refund checks, the governor's office
confirmed.

Rea Mializa O. Paeste and Jeffrey F. Paeste of Tamuning are among
several thousand taxpayers whose tax refund checks were listed as
unclaimed from prior tax years, governor's Communications Director
Troy Torres said.  Mr. Torres said he couldn't confirm if the
Paestes on the list are the same people who are lead plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit against the government of Guam, but if
they were, that would raise the question of their standing to sue
GovGuam for late tax refund payments.

The class action lawsuit was filed in April 2011.  The list of
unclaimed refunds covers tax refund checks cut from 2009 through
2011, Mr. Torres said.

"When saw this on the list, we sent this to the attorney" for the
government, Mr. Torres said.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc. on May 8 disclosed that the Company has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated
securities class-action lawsuit related to the restatement of
Hansen Medical's financial statements that was first announced in
October 2009.  Upon final court approval, all defendants,
including Hansen Medical, will receive a full and complete release
of all claims in the previously disclosed securities class action.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will
receive an aggregate of $8.5 million, $4 million of which will be
funded in cash by Hansen Medical's insurers and other sources.
The Company will fund the remaining portion by issuing $4.25
million worth of its common stock, the number of shares to be
determined based on the average closing price of the Company's
stock for the 10 trading days preceding final court approval of
the settlement of the class action, and paying $250,000 in cash.
The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability by
Hansen Medical or any other defendant.  The Company believes this
settlement is in the best interest of Hansen Medical and its
stakeholders, as it eliminates the uncertainties, burden and
further expense associated with this litigation.  The settlement
is subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including
execution of final settlement documents and approval by the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
which the Company expects to receive within approximately six
months.

Previously, in October 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
that fully resolved the SEC investigation of Hansen Medical
related to the issues surrounding the October 2009 financial
restatements.  The settlement with the SEC did not impose any
monetary penalty or fine on the Company.  In accepting that
settlement, the SEC recognized the Company's remedial actions,
including the change of personnel since the events related to the
restatement surfaced, and the substantial cooperation Hansen
Medical provided in connection with the SEC investigation.

                    About Hansen Medical, Inc.

Hansen Medical, Inc., based in Mountain View, California, is the
global leader in intravascular robotics, developing products and
technology designed to enable the accurate positioning,
manipulation and control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies.


HEARST CORP: Judge Tosses Unpaid Interns' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that a judge on May 8
ruled that former unpaid interns at publishing giant Hearst Corp.
can't pursue their case as a class action, echoing recent Supreme
Court cases.

In February 2012 Xuedan Wang, a former intern at Harper's Bazaar
magazine, sued Hearst, saying she and others were unfairly
misclassified.  Because she did work that was similar to what
others were paid to do, Ms. Wang claimed her unpaid internship
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state
labor laws.

"Unpaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-
level employees, except that employers are not paying them for the
many hours they work," stated Ms. Wang's complaint, filed in
federal court in Manhattan.

The case, pursued by law firm Outten & Golden, which specializes
in representing workers in wage-and-hour and misclassification
cases, sought class action status and was set for trial on May 28.

In a ruling on May 8, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer said that
the former interns failed to meet the bar set out in the Supreme
Court's landmark 2011 case Dukes v. Wal-Mart to constitute a class
action.  Specifically, Judge Baer found that the interns did not
meet the standards of commonality and predominance needed to be
considered a class.

"Here, while a close question, the commonality requirement is not
satisfied because plaintiffs cannot show anything more than a
uniform policy of unpaid internship," Judge Baer wrote, noting
that the plaintiffs, while raising that common issue, also had
many dissimilarities, as they worked for different magazines and
performed different tasks.

"To mix a metaphor, while half a loaf is better than none,
plaintiffs' argument here just doesn't cut the mustard," Judge
Baer wrote.

Rachel Bien and Justin Klein of Outten & Golden did not return
calls seeking comment.

Mark Batten, a lawyer at Proskauer Rose who represented Hearst
also did not return a call for comment.

While the ruling does end the case as a class action, the
plaintiffs are free to continue individually, noted Richard
Reibstein, an attorney at Pepper Hamilton who isn't involved in
the case.  They may face "an uphill battle," said Mr. Reibstein.
Because the plaintiffs say that they were entitled to only minimum
wage, any potential payouts to plaintiffs and their lawyers would
be based on those low wages.

"What lawyer is going to want to do work for that?" he said.

In addition to invoking the Dukes precedent, Judge Baer referenced
a more recent Supreme Court decision, noting that the high court's
decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend in March laid out more
stringent criteria regarding showing common damages in class
certification.

"Although plaintiffs argue that Comcast is limited to anti-trust
cases, the majority opinion explicitly rejected that very
proposition," Judge Baer wrote.

Judge Baer also denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
on whether they met the definition of an employee.

The case is Xuedan Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12cv793.

For the plaintiffs: Adam Klein, Deirdre Aaron, Elizabeth Wagoner,
Michael Scimone, Molly Brooks, Paul Mollica, Rachel Bien and Sally
Abrahamson of Outten & Golden.

For the defendant: Jonathan Donnellan, Kristina Findikyan and
Courtenay O'Connor of Hearst Corporation and Joshua Alloy --
jalloy@proskauer.com -- and Mark Batten -- mbatten@proskauer.com
-- of Proskauer Rose.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Class Action Over Autonomy Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Burke, writing for CRN, reports that a new class-action
lawsuit alleges that Hewlett-Packard sought to withdraw its
$11.1 billion acquisition of British software maker Autonomy just
weeks before the controversial deal was finalized.

The 115-page lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, San Francisco, on May 3 on behalf
of Dutch pension fund PGGM Vermogensbeheer, B.V. and other
shareholders, alleges that "unbeknownst to investors before HP's
offer to acquire Autonomy closed on October 3, 2011, HP was
actively seeking to withdraw its offer to purchase" the big data
software company.

That bid to withdraw the offer is a critical matter since HP
announced just over a year after closing the Autonomy deal that it
was taking an 85 percent write-down, or an $8.8 billion charge,
against earnings because of what it has called "serious accounting
improprieties" at Autonomy.  That write-down on November 20, 2012,
sent HP shares plummeting 12 percent in a single day, wiping out
$3.1 billion of HP's market capitalization.

The lawsuit alleges that then-HP Executive Chairman Ray Lane, who
is still on the HP board of directors, "asked HP's financial
advisors [Barclays and Perella] whether HP could back out of the
deal before it closed," but was told that "U.K. takeover rules
made that impossible."

"For HP to invoke a material adverse change condition under the
City Code before its Autonomy transaction closed on October 3,
2011, HP would have been required to demonstrate to the Panel that
circumstances had arisen affecting Autonomy which HP could not
have reasonably foreseen at the time of the announcement, of HP's
[Autonomy] offer on August 18, 2011, and which were of an entirely
exceptional nature," according to the class-action lawsuit.
"Given the numerous publically-available red flags about Autonomy
that made it reasonably foreseeable that Autonomy was overvalued
and/or engaging in accounting improprieties when HP announced its
offer on August 18, 2011, HP could not successfully withdraw the
offer."

Among the "red flags" pointed to by the class-action lawsuit are
"no less than 14 reports" from the Center For Financial Research
and Analysis (CFRA) "questioning Autonomy's purported growth and
financial reporting."  The lawsuit also points to a number of
reports from Paul Morland, a technology analyst with brokerage
firm Peel Hunt, including a June 2009 Autonomy report entitled
"Accounting Red Flags."  In addition, a July 23, 2010, Peel Hunt
report noted that the firm remained "concerned about [Autonomy's]
constant attempts to flatter the true picture and announce growth
rates which we believe are well above actual rates."

What's more, the lawsuit investigation by lead counsel points to
"information developed from former HP and Autonomy employees" and
[U.K. IT consultant] Alan Pelz-Sharpe "who referred Autonomy to
the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office for 'alleged suspicious
practices' before the Autonomy acquisition closed on October 3,
2011."  The suit also alleges that Morland "alerted HP's Investor
Relations Department about Autonomy's manipulative accounting
practices prior to the Autonomy acquisition."

The lawsuit alleges that Lane, HP CFO Cathie Lesjak and then-new
HP CEO Meg Whitman "recklessly disregarded, and/or turned a blind
eye to, Autonomy's overvaluation and impairments, reluctantly
allowed the Autonomy acquisition to close, and resolved to try to
quietly clean up the HP/Autonomy debacle internally."

HP did not respond specifically to the allegations that the
company attempted to withdraw the $11.1 billion Autonomy offer or
to whether Lane, Lesjak and Whitman "reluctantly" allowed the deal
to close.  But HP did supply CRN a statement in which the company
again pointed to alleged accounting misrepresentation by Autonomy
management.

"As we have continually said, HP relied on the audited financial
statements and the representations of Autonomy's management and
its auditors regarding Autonomy's business and revenue," HP said
in a statement.  "Those facts and figures appear to have been
willfully manipulated by certain Autonomy employees prior to the
company's acquisition, to mislead investors and potential buyers.

"HP's position is the same as it has been from the beginning.  We
have handed over our information of serious misrepresentations in
Autonomy's accounting to the proper authorities, namely the SEC
and the Department of Justice and in the U.K., the Serious Fraud
Office.  We continue to cooperate and provide requested
information to the relevant authorities on an ongoing basis."

The lawsuit is being brought by successful San Francisco attorney
Ramzi Abadou -- rabadou@ktmc.com -- of Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer &
Check LLP.  Mr. Abadou has won a number of significant class-
action settlements, including a $925.5 million settlement with
United Healthcare Group and a $100 million settlement with AT&T.

Several HP solution provider partners, for their part, said they
still see a great opportunity to bring game-changing big data
solutions to customers with what they see as superior HP-Autonomy
technology.

"I believe the Autonomy technology is important technology that
will help NWN customers solve problems," said Mont Phelps, the CEO
of NWN, a $266 million HP enterprise partner headquartered in
Waltham, Mass.  "The issue with regard to the lawsuit as to
whether they paid too much or not is frankly not an important
issue for me.  I can understand shareholders being concerned about
it.  No one wants to pay too much. But at the end of the day, this
is technology that will be beneficial to our customers.  It's
still early for [big data solutions], but what happened with the
acquisition is not relevant to whether we carry the technology or
what we do with it to help our customers' solve business problems.
That is a shareholder and Wall Street issue that is not going to
affect us."

Another top solution provider CEO, who did not want to be
identified, said he is anxious to see HP, which is just rolling
out a major Autonomy channel initiative, aggressively offer the
software through channel partners.  "We are anxious to learn about
Autonomy and get involved with the product," said the CEO.  "Who
doesn't want to have services related to a software product like
Autonomy? That's the dream for us and for HP when they bought
them.  We are looking for to channel engagement with Autonomy."

HP Software Executive Vice President George Kadifa recently told
solution providers on a partner webcast that HP is "definitely"
recruiting partners to sell the Autonomy iManage product line
focused on document management in the legal profession.  "In that
area we are actually the No. 1 player," he told solution
providers.  "We basically service about 80 percent of the large
law firms.  And now what we are doing is going to the enterprise
and offering that kind of service to the enterprises.  That is an
area where we welcome channel participation because the set of
opportunities is much larger, and we are very, very focused on
expanding that set of opportunities."

Whitman, for her part, has repeatedly stressed that HP is firmly
committed to the Autonomy product line.  "I still get questions
about our commitment to Autonomy, and we are 100 percent committed
to Autonomy," she told partners during the recent webcast.  "And
Autonomy actually is doing quite well this quarter.  Of course it
is a smaller business than we had been led to believe.  But the
good news is it is growing. Everywhere you go, people talk about
the magic of the Autonomy business and the Autonomy technology.
So just in case anyone is wondering: are we committed? 150 percent
committed.  This could be a big business for HP.  So we are
delighted."


JEVIC TRANSPORTATION: Court Trims Claims in WARN Act Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jevic Transportation, Inc., Jevic Holding Corp., and Creek Road
Properties LLC filed voluntary petitions in U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code on May 20, 2008.

Casimir Czyzewski, Melvin L. Myers, Jeffrey Oehlers, Arthur E.
Perigard, and Daniel C. Richards, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed an amended class action complaint
(Adv. Proc. No. 08-50662) against the Debtors and Sun Capital
Partners, Inc., the Debtors' ultimate parent, alleging WARN Act
and New Jersey WARN Act violations for failing to provide
employees with the requisite 60-day notice before a plant closing
or mass layoff. The Court certified the class and directed the
named Plaintiffs as the class representatives.

On September 26, 2012, Sun Cap filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing that it cannot be held liable under either the WARN Act or
the New Jersey WARN Act because it did not employ the Class
Plaintiffs, cannot be characterized as a "single employer" with
the Debtors, and cannot be held liable for actions of any other
Sun Cap entities.  In response, the Class Plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on October 16, 2012, arguing
that Sun Cap was a "single employer" with the Debtors, and as
such, is liable under the WARN Act and the New Jersey WARN Act.

The Class Plaintiffs also filed a separate motion for summary
judgment on November 15, 2012, arguing that the Debtors are liable
under the WARN Act and the New Jersey WARN Act because they did
not give employees sufficient notice of termination and further
contending that the Debtors cannot demonstrate that they should be
excused from complying with these statutes.

On May 10, 2013, Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon granted Sun Cap's
motion for summary judgment and denied the Class Plaintiffs'
partial summary judgment motion.

"The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact
that Sun Cap was not a "single employer" for purposes of the Class
Plaintiffs' claims under the WARN Act and the New Jersey WARN
Act," Judge Shannon said. "The record reflects that Sun Cap and
the Debtors operated two distinct and separate businesses that
were not dependent on each other. It is undisputed that Jevic
maintained separate books and records, had its own bank accounts,
and prepared its own financial statements. . . The Court is
satisfied, and the record reflects, that there is no unity of
personnel policies between the Debtors and Defendant Sun Cap," he
added.

In a separate ruling, Judge Shannon granted in part and denied in
part the Class Plaintiffs' November 15 Summary Judgment Motion,
holding that the Debtors are insulated from liability by the
Unforeseeable Business Circumstances exception to the WARN Act.

According to Judge Shannon, it is undisputed that the Debtors
violated the WARN Act by not providing its employees with the
required 60-day notice before terminating its employees. However,
the WARN Act provides for certain exceptions to the 60-day notice
requirement.  Specifically, he continued, the WARN Act provides
that "[a]n employer may order a plant closing or mass layoff
before the conclusion of the 60-day period if the closing or mass
layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not
reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been
required."

Having exhausted all of its options in financing and after CIT's
refusal to extend a forbearance under the parties' credit
facility, the Debtors then had no other choice but to file for
bankruptcy, Judge Shannon said.  He added that the Debtors'
layoffs were caused by CIT's refusal to extend forbearance. Thus,
"the Court finds that . . . the Debtors are entitled to the
Unforeseeable Business Circumstances exception," he said.

While the Court finds that the Debtors satisfy the Unforeseeable
Business Circumstances exception under the federal WARN Act, there
is no such exception under the New Jersey WARN Act, Judge Shannon
added.  Therefore, the Court ruled that the Class Plaintiffs are
entitled to recovery under the New Jersey WARN Act.

The case is Casimir Czyzewski, Melvin L. Myers, Jeffrey Oehlers,
Arthur E. Perigard, and Daniel C. Richards, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Jevic Transportation, Inc., Jevic Holding Corp., Creek Road
Properties, LLC, Sun Capital Partners, Inc., and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Adv. Proc. No. 08-50662.

A copy of the Bankruptcy Court's May 10, 2013 Opinions are
available at http://is.gd/oBoy0nand http://is.gd/NFFNTXfrom
Leagle.com.

                    About Jevic Transportation

Based in Delanco, New Jersey, Jevic Transportation Inc. --
http://www.jevic.com/-- provided trucking services.  Two
affiliates -- Jevic Holding Corp. and Creek Road Properties --
have no assets or operations.  Jevic et al. sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 08-11008) on May 20, 2008.
Domenic E. Pacitti, Esq., and Michael W. Yurkewicz, Esq., at Klehr
Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers, in Wilmington, Del., represent
the Debtors.  The U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed five
creditors to serve on an Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors.  Robert J. Feinstein, Esq., Bruce Grohsgal, Esq., and
Maria A. Bove, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in
Wilmington, Del., represent the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors.

Before filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors initiated an orderly
wind-down process.  As a part of the wind-down process, the
Debtors ceased substantially all of their business and
terminated roughly 90% of their employees.  The Debtors continue
to manage the wind-down process in an attempt to deliver all
freight in their system and to retrieve their assets.

When the Debtors sought protection from their creditors, they
estimated assets and debts between $50 million and $100 million.
At Oct. 31, 2010, the Debtor had total assets of $424,567, total
liabilities of $12.2 million, and a stockholders' deficit of
$11.8 million.  The Debtor ended the period with $362,104 in cash,
which includes restricted cash of $66,977.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Misleading Claims on Aveeno Line
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raphael Pope-Sussman, writing for Law360, reports that Johnson &
Johnson was hit on May 7 with a proposed class action in New York
federal court accusing the company of misleading consumers by
advertising its Aveeno line of personal care products as "natural"
when they include several synthetic chemicals.  Products like
Aveeno Active Naturals Nourish+Moisturize Shampoo or Aveeno Active
Naturals Creamy Moisturizing Oil are marketed to customers as
being "natural," distinguishing them from competitors' products
and enabling Johnson & Johnson to demand a premium price.  But the
products actually contain a range of synthetic ingredients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Orders Disclosure of Witnesses' Identities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that JPMorgan Chase &
Co. has won a court order requiring plaintiffs' lawyers pursuing a
securities fraud lawsuit against it to disclose the identities of
witnesses sourced anonymously in the complaint.

The order on May 7 by U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis in
Manhattan added to the growing list of cases in which judges have
allowed defendants to probe unnamed "confidential witnesses" used
to support investor class action claims.

Filed in 2009, the lawsuit against the bank is one of a series of
lawsuits by investors in mortgage-backed securities that went sour
during the housing meltdown and 2008 financial crisis.  Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd represents the lead plaintiffs, while Sidley
Austin is defending JPMorgan.

Neither Arthur Leahy of Robbins Geller nor a spokeswoman for
JPMorgan responded to requests for comment.

The May 7 order came a week after U.S. District Judge Colleen
McMahon ordered the disclosure of the names of nine witnesses
cited in a securities fraud lawsuit against Aeropostale Inc.

In securities class actions, confidential witnesses typically are
former employees of the defendant company.  To sufficiently allege
fraud in lawsuits, plaintiffs' lawyers often hire private
investigators to find former employees and get information about a
company's operations that they can use to bolster complaints.  But
defendants have increasingly pushed back and sought the names of
these anonymous witnesses.  Some once confidential witnesses have
later disputed saying what the plaintiffs have attributed to them.

In the JPMorgan case, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in March
2011 partially denied the bank's motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
allowing the case to move forward.

Earlier this year, the judge expanded the potential liability
JPMorgan faces.  He held that the lead plaintiffs -- Laborers
Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and Construction
Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California -- have standing to
pursue claims on behalf of investors in mortgage-backed
certificates they did not own but that stemmed from the same
offering.

The lawsuit is now on track to move toward the next stage when the
plaintiffs move for class certification.

Likely in anticipation of that motion, JPMorgan's lawyers at
Sidley Austin sought the names of confidential witnesses cited in
15 paragraphs of the complaint.

Robbins Geller objected, contending the witnesses' identities were
protected as attorney work product.  They also contended they
already fulfilled any duty to disclose the names by providing a
list of 44 individuals who may have relevant information and that
included the confidential witnesses.

Judge Francis, in siding with JPMorgan, said that while some
judges in New York have disagreed to some extent about whether
confidential informants' identities are privileged, the majority
view has been the names can be disclosed.

"Furthermore, leaving the defendants to contact all 44 individuals
to identify the confidential informants would be costly and time-
consuming where the lead plaintiffs can easily provide the same
information," he said.

The judge said that to the extent any of the confidential
witnesses have concerns about possible retaliation in a current or
future job, Robbins Geller could within two weeks address the
court to determine whether maintaining anonymity was justified.

The law firm's use of confidential witnesses has come under
scrutiny before.

In another of its cases, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
March upheld the dismissal of a securities class action against
Boeing Co in which a key confidential witness disputed saying
almost everything the complaint attributed to him.

The appellate court sent the Boeing case back to a Chicago judge
to decide if Robbins Geller should be sanctioned.  Eric Isaacson,
a Robbins Geller partner who argued the appeal, did not respond to
a request for comment on May 8.

The case is Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 09-03701.

For the lead plaintiffs: Arthur Leahy -- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Jonah
Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Scott Saham --
scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Susan Taylor -- susant@rgrdlaw.com -- Thomas
Egler -- tome@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
-- and David Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd.

For JPMorgan: Robert Pietrzak -- rpietrzak@sidley.com -- Andrew
Stern -- astern@sidley.com -- and Dorothy Spenner --
dspenner@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin.


MASSACHUSETTS: Landmark Class Action Disability Suit Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Barry, writing for The Republican, reports that her
supporters, which have grown since 1998 from a small number of
family members to a legion of disability rights advocates, were
there to support Loretta Rolland even if she could not physically
applaud herself.

A courtroom filled with advocates, attorneys, state disability
rights officials and workers, came to testify at and witness a
hearing in U.S. District Court that signaled the dismissal of the
Ms. Rolland class action suit on May 8.  The landmark suit against
the state was settled as public agencies made substantial progress
in moving those with intellectual and developmental disabilities
to community settings.

Thousands had languished in nursing homes for years, spending
lonely hours in hallways and without clear treatment plans until
the Center for Public Representation in Northampton brought a case
against state on behalf of Ms. Rolland and five others looking to
get into community settings.  A class of more than 1,800 was born.

Ms. Rolland has advanced cerebral palsy that gripped more of her
body as she grew older.  She began using a wheelchair in her 20s.
She lived with her mother until she was in her 50s and her mother
died, then was transferred to a nursing home and deemed "medically
complex."

Ms. Rolland required 24-hour care and it was the most routine
placement for severely disabled people whose families could no
longer care for them.  Ms. Rolland has little mobility and can
barely speak, but she knew she was miserable in a nursing home.

Ms. Rolland and her fellow plaintiffs sought to change that.  They
ultimately changed the entire landscape of a cumbersome,
complicated medical and social service model that seemed immovable
at first.  The effort involved thousands of plaintiffs, resistant
guardians, hundreds of nursing homes, hundreds of medical
professionals and social workers, myriad state agencies -- all
suddenly entangled in litigation.

The broad goals of the lawsuit were twofold: first, to move
plaintiffs out of nursing homes into community settings; and
second, to provide "active treatment," or individualized care
plans for those who could not immediately be moved.  But, it
required corralling scattered resources and building new resources
and community placements from the ground up.

"When working to support people you can never stop learning," said
Elin M. Howe, commissioner of the state Department of
Developmental Services, said during the hearing before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman.

Ms. Howe said many of the plaintiffs have been moved to highly
specialized group homes with round-the-clock care and enjoy daily
shopping trips, dinner outings and other activities for the first
time in their lives.  The plaintiffs have ranged from pediatric
patients to a woman in her 90s, other speakers at the hearing
said.

Ms. Rolland, 71, a Springfield native, volunteers at an animal
shelter and has her own apartment at a group home in Holden.

"She goes out every day and does what she wants to do," said
Lindsey Dezotell, program director at the "medical model" home
where Rolland lives.  "She's free."

Through somewhat labored speaking, Ms. Rolland said "she never
wants to go back there again," referring to the nursing home.

Ms. Howe, plaintiffs' lawyer Cathy Costanzo and others who spoke
at the May 8 hearing marveled at how the case evolved from an
incredibly litigious exchange 14 years ago to a feeling of
camaraderie and celebration as Judge Neiman dismissed the case.

Court monitor Lyn Rucker handed out awards and all credited
Rolland with being a vanguard for disability rights.  About 670
nursing home patients have been moved into community settings with
another 30 in the process of doing so.

"I think they're going to name a planet after you," joked Judge
Neiman, who managed the case and spent days in the field visiting
plaintiffs at institutional and community-based settings.

Prompting an avalanche of court activity, the case broke out into
two settlements advocates call "Rolland 1" and "Rolland 2."

Larry Tummino, deputy commissioner of the Department of
Developmental Services, said a revised settlement agreement was
reached into 2007 because they realized there had not been as much
advancement as all parties had hoped.

"We just weren't where we wanted to be," he said, adding that the
second phase of the litigation placed more of an emphasis on
community placements than "active care" in nursing homes.  The
initiative will yield nearly 700 moves from nursing homes to
community settings by the end of the year, advocates said.

The dismissal of the lawsuit means the state will now manage the
system autonomously, without the court's oversight.

All agreed Ms. Rolland's willingness to file the suit has set a
new standard of care for the disabled that will transcend
generations and stretch beyond state boundaries.

"It's an epic one.  It's like Brown vs. the Board of Education in
the disability world," said Tara Arthur, program director for
Rehabilitation Resources Inc., a nonprofit organization based in
Sturbridge that runs Rolland's group home and other specialized
placements.  Brown vs. the Board of Education helped end
segregation in public schools.

                      Class Action Nears End

David Riley, writing for Taunton Daily Gazette, reports that a
class action lawsuit challenging the state of Massachusetts'
placement of people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in nursing homes is nearing its end after 14 years in
court.

The 1998 suit -- Rolland vs. Cellucci -- challenged the
"unnecessary confinement and segregation" of more than 1,600
people with disabilities in 290 nursing facilities in
Massachusetts and argued many could live in more integrated
community housing with appropriate support.

Earlier this year, the plaintiffs said in a court document they
agreed that the state has fulfilled its obligations under the last
of two settlements reached in the case.

"Our understanding of what was really possible for people deepened
and grew, for all of us," said Cathy E. Costanzo, one of the lead
attorneys for the plaintiffs from the Center for Public
Representation in Northampton.  "It opened all of our eyes and all
of our hearts."

The suit is named after lead plaintiff Loretta Rolland, a woman
who moved out of a nursing facility in 2002 and lives today in the
Holden area, according to Ms. Costanzo.

Many of the plaintiffs did not need skilled nursing care, but help
with basic daily activities, such as bathing, dressing and eating,
according to the suit.  The case also said most plaintiffs were
not receiving required services to help them live more
independently.

More than 1,100 people transitioned into community-based housing
from 2000 to 2007 under the first settlement with the state,
according to Ms. Costanzo's office.  About 670 more moved since a
second settlement in 2008, with another 30 scheduled, the
nonprofit law firm said.

About 135 people remain in nursing facilities due to complex
medical issues.

Tina Roderick of Hudson said she originally was opposed to her
adult son, Will Campbell, leaving Seven Hills Pediatric Center in
Groton, a skilled nursing facility where he had lived since he was
6 years old.  He is now 26.

Ms. Roderick worried about Mr. Campbell's medical needs, and she
said he had received very good care at the center.  He has a
seizure disorder, an intellectual disability and respiratory
problems.  He uses a wheelchair and is fed through a tube.  He
often was hospitalized.  But Ms. Roderick, her husband and son all
were impressed with a group home run by Seven Hills, where five
people much like Mr. Campbell lived comfortably.  The family
shifted gears.

Mr. Campbell has now lived in a new home for more than a year
without any hospital trips.  He enjoys a range of activities and
is going to a Rascal Flatts concert in June, his mother said.

Ms. Roderick described her son as proud and happy.  "It's
freedom," she said.  "It's just life. He didn't have that before,
and I didn't know that."

Not everyone welcomed the changes brought by the lawsuit. Other
parents with children at Seven Hills Pediatric Center filed an
unsuccessful appeal of the second settlement.  Many of the
opponents feared children with fragile medical conditions would be
forced to move against the wishes of their guardians.

Louis Putterman of Concord, a father of a Seven Hills resident who
spoke for some families opposed to the settlement, said as far as
he knows, none have been forced to move.

"We considered that we were able to dodge that particular bullet
partly by getting some public attention to the matter," he said.

Mr. Putterman said some families remain upset and angry they were
not informed of the case sooner and disturbed by the settlement.
Supporters of the suit fail to recognize the need for alternatives
to community-based treatment in some cases, he said.

At least one advocate for people with intellectual disabilities
hailed the case.

"People were consigned to a life in a nursing setting that was not
necessary, and now they have the opportunity for enjoying their
own home, a bedroom, a backyard and just getting out on a regular
basis," said Leo Sarkissian, executive director of Arc of
Massachusetts, an advocacy group that backed the lawsuit.

Ms. Costanzo said the suit began with a "very contentious" tone,
but credited state health officials with later making major
efforts to place people with disabilities appropriately and divert
them from nursing facilities where necessary.

In a written statement, Alec Loftus, spokesman for the Executive
Office of Health and Human Services, said the state has met all
the requirements of the settlement.

"This represents a significant expansion of capacity to serve
these individuals and others like them in appropriate, community-
based settings, and a significant achievement of the
commonwealth's Community First Initiative," he wrote.


MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care Children Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lichtenstein, writing for Huffington Post, reports that it's
been a tough couple of months for the Massachusetts child welfare
system.

Governor Deval Patrick and two child welfare officials are facing
charges in U.S. District Court in a class action suit, Connor B.
v. Patrick, which charges them with failing to protect the 7,500
foster kids in state custody from neglect and abuse.

The lawsuit, filed by the New York-based Children's Rights,
charges that Massachusetts has one of the nation's highest rates
of abuse of foster children in the country -- nearly four times
the national standard -- and cites a U.S. Government
Accountability Office study that found nearly 40 percent of foster
children in Mass. were prescribed psychiatric medications,
compared to slightly more than 10 percent of children outside of
state custody.

On March 7, Angelo McClain, commissioner of the Mass. Department
of Children and Families, the state agency responsible for
protecting the welfare of children and one of three defendants in
the lawsuit, walked off the job just days after the plaintiff
rested its case.

Prior to his departure, Mr. McClain had defended his department
against the allegations in the suit saying he was concerned that
resources being used to defend the case could be helping the
children of Massachusetts.  "It's distracting the agency from
doing the work we need to do," Mr. McClain told the Boston Globe.

Mr. McClain's sudden resignation followed the departure of a
second defendant in the case, Mass. Department of Health and Human
Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby, who left in December in the wake
of a several scandals in her department.

The current trial focuses on the Mass. foster care system but it
comes at a time when questions being raised in the state and
nationally about the welfare of kids in Massachusetts, both in
foster care and in other settings:

   * The Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Mass. remains under a
harsh public spotlight for its use of electro-shock with children
for behavior modification, as a March 3 United Nations report
joins the chorus of those calling the treatment of children there
"torture."

   * The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has
opened up investigations following allegations by at least two
parents in Lexington, MA that they were retaliated against after
coming forward about the mistreatment of their kids in school.
And an April 5 report of a survey by the town's special education
parents group reveals that numerous parents reported being
retaliated against by the school department after speaking up or
advocating for their children.

   * The 2012 annual report from the Massachusetts Child Advocate
detailed 103 deaths among kids who were involved with state
agencies between 2009 and 2011.  These reports include that a 19-
month-old baby died from "abusive head trauma while in the care of
her family"; an "eight-year-old male died from intentional carbon
monoxide poisoning while in the care of his family"; and a "seven-
year-old male accidentally drowned in a bathtub while in the care
of his family."

Marcia Lowry is the executive director of Children's Rights and an
attorney in the Connor B. v. Patrick class action suit.  Ms. Lowry
has pioneered a body of law to protect children dependent on child
welfare systems and served for more than 20 years as director of
the Children's Rights Projects of the New York Civil Liberties
Union and American Civil Liberties Union.  Her work in New York
City in the 1970s on behalf of foster kids was chronicled in Nina
Bernstein's 2000 book The Lost Children of Wilder: The Epic
Struggle to Change Foster Care.


MASTERCARD INC: Paid $726MM to US Merchant Class Deal in Dec.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2012, MasterCard Incorporated made a $726 million
payment into a qualified settlement fund related to its U.S.
merchant class litigation. The Company has presented these funds
as restricted cash for litigation settlement since the use of the
funds under the qualified settlement fund is restricted for
payment under a preliminary settlement agreement that is subject
to court approval.

As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company's
provision related to the U.S. merchant class litigation was $724
million and $726 million, respectively.


MASTERCARD INC: Revised Deal Okayed in April in "Attridge" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court in April 2013 granted final approval of a
revised settlement in the "Attridge action."

Commencing in October 1996, several class action suits were
brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard
International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of
the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. The
plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a
similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard
cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard
card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In June 2003, MasterCard
International signed a settlement agreement to settle the claims
brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved
in December 2003. Pursuant to the settlement, MasterCard agreed,
among other things, to create two separate "Honor All Cards" rules
in the United States -- one for debit cards and one for credit
cards.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought
in 19 states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against
MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes
of consumers.

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with
excessive interchange fees, have passed these overhead charges to
consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold.
MasterCard has successfully resolved the cases in all of the
jurisdictions except California, where there continues to be
outstanding cases.

The "Attridge" complaint was filed in April 2005 on behalf of a
putative class of consumers under California unfair competition
law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the "Attridge
action").   The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the
portion of the DOJ antitrust litigation with regard to the
District Court's findings concerning MasterCard's CPP and Visa's
related bylaw. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition
claims. The parties have proceeded with discovery.

In September 2009, the parties to the California state court
actions executed a settlement agreement which required a payment
by MasterCard of $6 million, subject to approval by the California
state court.  The agreement includes a release that the parties
believe encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action. In
August 2010, the Court in the California consumer actions granted
final approval to the settlement. The plaintiff from the Attridge
action and three other objectors filed appeals of the settlement
approval.

In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings. In August 2012, the parties in the California
consumer actions filed a motion seeking approval of a revised
settlement agreement.

The trial court granted final approval of the settlement in April
2013. This approval is subject to appeal.


MASTERCARD INC: Court Dismisses ATM Operators' Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted
MasterCard Incorporated's motion to dismiss the ATM Non-
Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints filed against it.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa U.S.A., Inc. (the "ATM Operators Complaint").

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge charged for
transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM.

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek
damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly
inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a
result of the defendants' ATM rules.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. MasterCard has moved
to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. Oral
argument on the motion was heard by the court in September 2012.
In February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the complaints and the plaintiffs have since filed a
motion seeking approval to amend their complaints.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y
----------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International Incorporated continues to face a
consolidated lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York over alleged violation of the Sherman
Act.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints are styled as
class actions, although a few complaints are filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International
Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service
Association and a number of customer financial institutions. Taken
together, the claims in the complaints are generally brought under
both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.

The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard, Visa,
and certain of their customer financial institutions conspired to
set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale
acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of
antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of
certain products and services. The cases have been consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in MDL No.1720. The plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble
damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Mastercard Incorporated disclosed these updates in its 10-Q filing
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.


MASTERCARD INC: Seeks Final Okay of Deal in Merchant Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the merchant class litigation against MasterCard
Incorporated filed briefs in support of their motion for final
approval of a settlement.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard
Incorporated's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock
in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered
into between MasterCard and its customer financial institutions in
connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2)
constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the customer financial
institutions are allegedly attempting to release, without adequate
consideration, MasterCard's right to assess them for MasterCard's
litigation liabilities.

In November 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety
with leave to file an amended complaint. The class plaintiffs
repled their complaint. The causes of action and claims for relief
in the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs'
original IPO-related complaint although the plaintiffs have
attempted to expand their factual allegations based upon discovery
that has been garnered in the case.

The class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding
the IPO. In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual
plaintiffs served confidential expert reports detailing the
plaintiffs' theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens
of billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert reports
in December 2009 rebutting the plaintiffs' assertions both with
respect to liability and damages.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing
and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International Service Association and a number of
customer financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement
and judgment sharing agreement with a number of customer financial
institutions.  The agreements provide for the apportionment of
certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties
and the customer financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or
severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of
one or all of the cases in the interchange merchant litigations.
Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
customer financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would
pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of
a settlement involving only MasterCard and the customer financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

On July 13, 2012, MasterCard entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") to settle the merchant class litigation, and
separately agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the
individual merchant plaintiffs. The MOU sets out a binding
obligation to enter into a settlement agreement, and is subject
to: (1) the successful completion of certain appendices, (2) the
successful negotiation of a settlement agreement with the
individual merchant plaintiffs, (3) final court approval of the
class settlement, and (4) any necessary internal approvals for the
parties.

MasterCard's financial portion of the settlements is estimated to
total $790 million on a pre-tax basis. Of that total, MasterCard
recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth quarter of
2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in the second
quarter of 2012. In addition to the financial portion of the
settlement, U.S. merchant class members would also receive a 10
basis point reduction in default credit interchange fees for a
period of eight months, funded by a corresponding reduction in the
default credit interchange fees paid by acquirers to issuers.
MasterCard would also be required to modify its No Surcharge Rule
to permit U.S. merchants to surcharge MasterCard credit cards,
subject to certain limitations set forth in the class settlement
agreement.

On October 19, 2012, the parties entered into a definitive
settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation
(consistent with the terms of the MOU), and separately also
entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant
plaintiffs. The merchant class litigation settlement agreement is
subject to court approval. The parties to the merchant class
litigation filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement on October 19, 2012, and the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on November 27, 2012 and scheduled a
final approval hearing for September 2013.

In April 2013, the parties filed briefs in support of their motion
for final approval of the settlement.

In 2012, the Company paid $790 million with respect to the
settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified
settlement fund related to the merchant class litigations. Rule
practice changes required by the settlement were implemented in
late January 2013. In the event that the merchant class litigation
settlement agreement is not approved by the court, or if the class
settlement agreement is otherwise terminated by the defendants
pursuant to the conditions in the settlement agreement and the
litigations are not settled, a negative outcome in the litigation
could have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Class Sought in Canadian Credit Card Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated provided these updates on Canadian
lawsuits over alleged conspiracy related to credit card
transaction fees:

   (1) the Quebec suit was stayed in June 2012 until June 2013,

   (2) the Ontario suit is being temporarily suspended while
       the British Columbia suit proceeds, and

   (3) the British Columbia court held a class certification
       hearing in April 2013.

These suits allege that MasterCard, Visa and the financial
institutions have engaged in a conspiracy to increase or maintain
the fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions and
establish rules which force merchants to accept all MasterCard and
Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from charging more for
payments with MasterCard and Visa premium cards.

In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau filed an
application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to strike down
certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-sale acceptance,
including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules.

The hearing on the matter was held before the Canadian Competition
Tribunal and was completed in June 2012. The parties are awaiting
a decision from the Canadian Competition Tribunal. In December
2010, a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of the CCB
application to the Canadian Competition Tribunal and sought
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well
as injunctive relief. In March 2011, a second purported class
action lawsuit was commenced in British Columbia against
MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions, and in May 2011 a third purported class action
lawsuit was commenced in Ontario against the same defendants.

These suits allege that MasterCard, Visa and the financial
institutions have engaged in a conspiracy to increase or maintain
the fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions and
establish rules which force merchants to accept all MasterCard and
Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from charging more for
payments with MasterCard and Visa premium cards. The British
Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs. In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include
the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia
and Ontario suits.

With respect to status of the proceedings: (1) the Quebec suit was
stayed in June 2012 until June 2013, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia court held a class certification
hearing in April 2013.

Additional complaints styled as class actions have been filed in
Saskatchewan and Alberta. The claims in these complaints largely
mirror the claims in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. If
the CCB's challenges and/or the class action law suits are
ultimately successful, negative decisions could have a significant
adverse impact on the revenue of MasterCard's Canadian customers
and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada and, in the case of
the private lawsuits, could result in substantial damage awards.


MATTEL INC: MGA's Bid to Reassert Trade Secret Claim Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
MGA Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to amend its complaint to
reassert the trade secret claim that the appeals court dismissed
without prejudice remains pending, according to Mattel, Inc.'s
April 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and
assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"),
during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his
contractual and other duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant
asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in
which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its Chief Executive
Officer Isaac Larian, certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.
The RICO claim alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by
recruiting and hiring key Mattel employees and directing them to
bring with them Mattel confidential and proprietary information,
unfairly competed against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets,
confidential information, and key employees to build their
business.  On January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to
file these claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases,
which Mattel did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011. During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions.  The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim.  The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million.  The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs.  The Court entered a
judgment which totaled approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel appealed the judgment, challenging on appeal the entirety
of the District Court's monetary award in favor of MGA, including
both the award of $170 million in damages for alleged trade secret
misappropriation and approximately $140 million in attorney's fees
and costs.  On January 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a ruling on Mattel's appeal.  In that ruling, the
Court found that MGA's claim for trade secrets misappropriation
was not compulsory to any Mattel claim and could not be filed as a
counterclaim-in-reply.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated
the portion of the judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees
and costs to MGA for prevailing on its trade secrets
misappropriation claim, totaling approximately $172.5 million.  It
ruled that, on remand, the District Court must dismiss MGA's trade
secret claim without prejudice.  In its ruling, the Court of
Appeals also affirmed the District Court's award of attorney's
fees and costs under the Copyright Act.  Accordingly, Mattel
recorded a litigation accrual of $137.8 million during the fourth
quarter of 2012 to cover these fees and costs.

On February 27, 2013, MGA filed a motion to amend its complaint to
reassert the trade secret claim that the Court of Appeals ordered
dismissed without prejudice.

Mattel believes that it has strong arguments that such an
amendment is improper in federal court because the claim is purely
one of state law and that even if amendment is allowed, or if MGA
were to file the claim in state court, the claim is barred by the
statute of limitations, among other defenses, and should be
dismissed without a trial.

Mattel, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety
of toy products worldwide, which are sold to its customers and
directly to consumers.  Mattel is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MERCK & CO: Sanford Heisler Files Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler LLP on May 9 disclosed that it filed a $100
million individual and class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for New Jersey against pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.,
Inc.

The action was brought by Kelli Smith on behalf of all female
sales representatives at Merck.  The complaint asserts that the
company systematically discriminates against its female and
pregnant employees in assignment, promotion, advancement, and pay
and retaliates against female employees in violation of Title VII
of the US Civil Rights Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the
Family and Medical Leave Act and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

"Merck is a male-dominated workplace openly hostile to the success
and advancement of women," said David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Founder and Chairman of Sanford
Heisler and lead attorney on Ms. Smith's legal team.  "Its
discrimination against mothers is particularly egregious because
Merck's compensation structure decreases the pay of managers whose
subordinates take maternity leave."

Other members of Ms. Smith's legal team include Kate Mueting --
kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- an associate in Washington, D.C,
and Deborah Marcuse -- dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com -- a Senior
Litigation Counsel in New York.  Sanford Heisler LLP has a long
record of victories in employment discrimination matters brought
by female employees of global pharmaceutical companies, including
a recent case against Novartis that resulted in the largest ever
monetary award in a U.S. employment discrimination case.

Ms. Smith's suit details a widespread pattern of employment
discrimination.  Merck discourages management from hiring and
promoting women, attempts to force pregnant women to leave the
company so their managers' compensation will not be affected, and
structures compensation so that managers and colleagues of
pregnant women get paid less because they work with women who take
maternity leave.

"Female employees are discouraged from having children, and
punished when they do," said Ms. Mueting.  "Ms. Smith's
supervisors admitted that Ms. Smith's low ranking was due to the
'timing of her baby.'  High-level company officials, including
Human Resources, refused to address her discriminatory placement,
and attempted to discourage Ms. Smith from raising allegations of
discrimination."

The complaint asserts employees on maternity leave are ineligible
for merit awards and recognition for their sales, even when their
sales surpass those of their male counterparts.  According to Ms.
Smith's legal team, Merck has long been on notice about its
company-wide gender and pregnancy discrimination, but has taken no
steps to remedy them.  In fact, the complaint notes that Merck
routinely retaliates against women who raise discrimination
complaints -- another violation of federal and state employment
statutes.

Ms. Smith is a Senior Sales Representative at Merck in Toms River,
NJ.  After joining the company in 2004, she received national
recognition for her sales productivity and outstanding leadership.
However, when she became pregnant after five successful years at
the company, Ms. Smith faced hostility from her manager, who
withdrew his support and refused to acknowledge her as a member of
his team.

When Ms. Smith returned from giving birth, Merck demoted her to
the same rank as entry-level sales representatives.  Ms. Smith's
managers later told her that her low ranking was due to her
pregnancy and maternity leave.

"Merck creates a hostile environment where female and pregnant
employees are harassed and marginalized," said Deborah Marcuse.
"Managers refer to women as "whores" and routinely exclude them
from events and networking opportunities."

The class action complaint requests court intervention that would
prevent further gender and pregnancy discrimination.

Merck, headquartered in Whitehouse Station, NJ, employs some
83,000 individuals worldwide.  Its 2012 global revenue was $47.3
billion, including $20.4 billion in the U.S.  The company
manufactures pharmaceuticals for many conditions, including
women's health.

                       About Sanford Heisler

Sanford Heisler is a public interest law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and other civil
rights matters.


NCAA: Judge Allows Depositions of Big Ten, Horizon Commissioners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that an attorney
helping to represent former and current college football and men's
basketball players in an anti-trust lawsuit told USA TODAY Sports
a U.S. magistrate judge is allowing their legal team to take
depositions from a college president and two conference
commissioners who had made statements in the case saying that some
schools and conferences might exit Division I or the Football Bowl
Subdivision because of the financial and legal burden that would
result from needing to share revenue with football and men's
basketball players.

Speaking after a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael
Cousins on May 8 in San Francisco, plaintiffs' attorney Renae
Steiner said Judge Cousins allowed depositions of Big Ten
commissioner Jim Delany, Horizon League commissioner Jon LeCrone
and Fresno State president John Welty.

Judge Cousins also allowed the plaintiffs to take a deposition
from NCAA executive vice president for championships and alliances
Mark Lewis about various aspects of how the college sports
governing body approaches its broadcast rights contracts for NCAA
championships, Steiner said.

Mr. Steiner said the plaintiffs will not be allowed to depose
Texas athletics director DeLoss Dodds, Missouri Valley Conference
commissioner Doug Elgin, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby and NCAA
managing director of research Todd Petr.  The plaintiffs' lawyers
agreed before the May 8 hearing to drop their request to depose
Pacific-12 Conference commissioner Larry Scott, after discussions
with counsel for the Pac-12, Steiner said.

All of this is part of maneuvering in advance of a hearing June 20
before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on whether the case
should be certified as a class action.

The suit, initially filed in May 2009, is against the NCAA; video-
game maker Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate
trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co.
Its named plaintiffs include former basketball stars Ed O'Bannon,
Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated anti-trust law
by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of compensation athletes
can receive for the use of their names, images and likenesses in
products or media while they are in school and by requiring
athletes to sign forms under which they relinquish in perpetuity
all rights pertaining to the use of the names, images and
likenesses in ways including TV contracts, rebroadcasts of games,
and video game, jersey and other apparel sales

In seeking certification of their suit as a class action, the
plaintiffs' lawyers said that while they are seeking monetary
damages on behalf of former athletes, they "do not seek
compensation to be paid to current student-athletes while they
maintain their eligibility" but rather "a less restrictive, namely
that monies generated by the licensing and sale of class members'
names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in trust"
until their end of their college playing careers.

If the case is certified as a class action, it almost certainly
would bring thousands of current and former college athletes into
the matter and potentially place billions of dollars in damages at
stake.

Roger Noll, an economics professor emeritus at Stanford and an
expert for the plaintiffs has proposed that athletes receive a 50-
50 split of money for telecasts and a one-third split for video
games.

Those projections prompted the statements from Delany, LeCrone and
Welty.

"We are pleased that, despite the opposition of NCAA's counsel,
and counsel for the Big Ten, the court recognized our right to
explore with Commissioner Delany, Commissioner LeCrone and Fresno
State President Welty their views on the effects on Division I
athletics if Plaintiffs were to prevail here," Mr. Steiner said
via e-mail.  "We are also pleased that we are allowed to examine
Mr. Lewis on his views of how the NCAA rules apply to the use of
student athletes' name, image and likeness rights."

The NCAA was happy with Judge Cousins' decision to prevent some of
the depositions the plaintiffs had wanted, and to allow what it
termed "very limited additional discovery."

"We are pleased with the court's ruling and the admissions the
plaintiffs' lawyers made [Wednes]day highlighting the weaknesses
in their theories," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy
said in a statement.  "We look forward to the additional discovery
shining a light on the reasons why this case is not a proper class
action."


PET VALU: Aird & Berlis Discusses Ontario Superior Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Levitt -- nlevitt@airdberlis.com -- at Aird & Berlis LLP
reports that in a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice released on July 27, 2012, the Honourable Justice George
Strathy set aside various opt-out notices received from current
and former franchisees in a pending class action against the
franchisor regarding the franchisor's alleged failure to pass the
benefits of volume rebates on to the franchisees. (See 1250264
Ontario Inc. v Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 4317).

This decision is notable due to the fact that neither the
franchisor nor the franchisee heading the class action were
responsible for the subversion of the opt-out process.  This
decision sets an interesting precedent regarding the ability of
franchisees to bring class actions against franchisors in Ontario.

The facts behind the decision are relatively straightforward.
After the franchisees' association held a meeting regarding the
merits of the pending class action against the franchisor, a sub-
set of franchisees took it upon themselves to defeat the class
action.  Through the use of a telephone campaign and a website
which listed franchisees who had chosen to opt out of the class
action, the sub-set of franchisees put great pressure on other
franchisees to also opt out of the proceedings.  Justice Strathy
held that the actions of the sub-set of franchisees were an
unabashed attempt to end the class action and denied other
franchisees their right to a fair and informed opt-out process.
Justice Strathy considered it to be very likely that many
franchisees had decided to opt out as a result of the misleading
information and unfair pressure created by the telephone campaign
and website, resulting in a corruption of the opt-out process.
Accordingly, Justice Strathy declared all of the opt-out notices
received after the commencement of the telephone and website
campaign to be invalid.

Notably, Justice Strathy explained that the franchisees' right to
associate under s. 4(1) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise
Disclosure), 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 3 (the "Act") was not at issue in
this case. The right to associate in section 4 of the Act is with
regard to the relationship between franchisor and franchisees, as
opposed to the right of association among franchisees.

Instead, Justice Strathy held that the exercise of the
franchisees' right to associate pursuant to the Act had interfered
with the franchisees' rights under the Class Proceedings Act,
1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 to such an extent that the relief granted
was necessary.

This decision also calls into question the appropriateness of
class action proceedings in a franchise context, which depends so
heavily upon harmony among franchisees and between franchisees and
their franchisor.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Appeal v. Principal Life 401(k) Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal against a
ruling denying class certification to a suit filed against
Principal Life Insurance Company over 401(k) plans.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life.  Principal Life's motion to transfer venue
was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District
of Iowa.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to
401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to
employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included
in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the
revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the
plans. Plaintiff further alleged that these acts constitute
prohibited transactions under ERISA. Plaintiff sought to certify a
class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a
service provider and for which Principal Life received and
retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds.

On August 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for class certification
was denied. On June 13, 2011, the court entered a consent judgment
resolving the claims of the plaintiff. On July 12, 2011, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal related to the issue of the denial of
class certification. On February 13, 2013, the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Principal Life continues to
aggressively defend the lawsuit.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Cruise/Mullaney ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Principal Life Insurance Company; Principal Life;
Principal Global Investors, LLC; and Principal Real Estate
Investors, LLC (the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants).

The lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to
manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in
the best interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal
freeze" on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue"
to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available.

Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary
duties under ERISA. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including
all qualified ERISA plans and the participants of those plans that
invested in PUSPSA between September 26, 2008, and the present
that have suffered losses caused by the queue.

The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints
asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known
as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation. On April 22,
2010, an order was entered granting the motion made by the
Cruise/Mullaney Defendants for change of venue to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint adding five new
plaintiffs on November 22, 2010, and the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court
denied the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants' motion to dismiss on
May 17, 2011. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification and the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants have resisted it.
The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the
lawsuit, according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s 10-Q
filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Anticipates Amendment of "Brookler" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation anticipates that counsel for the "Brookler"
class action lawsuit will attempt to amend the complaint to add
additional sub-classes, 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.

On April 6, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Los Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation,
claiming that the Company violated California's wage and hour laws
relating to meal and rest periods.  The meal period portion of the
case was originally certified as a class action in February 2006.
The Company's first Motion for Decertification of the class was
denied in August 2007.  After a favorable decision at the
California Court of Appeals in the similar case of Brinker
Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the Company filed a
second motion for decertification, and in October 2008 the trial
court granted the Company's motion.  The plaintiffs in Brookler
appealed this ruling.  Due to the unsettled nature of California
law regarding the obligations of employers in respect of meal
periods, the Company and the Brookler plaintiffs requested that
the California Court of Appeals stay its ruling on the plaintiffs'
appeal of the class decertification ruling pending the California
Supreme Court's decision in Brinker.  The appellate court denied
this joint motion and then heard oral arguments in the case on
August 5, 2010.  On August 26, 2010, the California Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification of the class,
and the Company's Petition for Rehearing was denied on September
14, 2010.  On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Petition for
Review with the California Supreme Court, which granted review and
placed the case on hold pending its decision in Brinker.  On April
12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
Brinker.

On June 20, 2012, the California Supreme Court remanded the
Brookler case to the California Court of Appeals instructing it to
vacate its prior order and reconsider its ruling in light of its
ruling in Brinker.  Both parties filed their supplemental briefs
and oral argument was held on November 1, 2012.  On December 5,
2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
decertification of the meal period class.

The Company says it is anticipated that counsel for Brookler will
attempt to amend the Complaint to add additional sub-classes.  The
outcome of this case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of
it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial statements in the period in which the
resolution is recorded.

RadioShack Corporation -- http://www.radioshack.com/-- sells
consumer electronics and peripherals, including cellular phones.
The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Bid to Reconsider "Ordonez" Suit Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion
for reconsideration of the denial of class certification in a
class action lawsuit initiated by Daniel Ordonez, 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 May 2010, Daniel Ordonez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees, filed a Complaint
against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court.  In July
2010, Mr. Ordonez filed an Amended Complaint alleging, among other
things, that the Company failed to provide required meal periods,
provide required rest breaks, pay for all time worked, pay
overtime compensation, pay minimum wages, and maintain required
records.  In September 2010, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The proposed putative class in Ordonez consists of
all current and former non-exempt employees who held the position
of sales associate or stock person for a period within the four
(4) years preceding the filing of the case.  The meal period
claims raised in Ordonez are similar to the claims raised in
Brookler lawsuit.  Pursuant to a motion filed by the Ordonez
parties, the court granted a Stipulation and Order to Stay
Proceedings pending the decision of the California Supreme Court
in Brinker.  On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court
issued its decision in Brinker.  On July 27, 2012, Ordonez filed
its Motion for Class Certification.  On October 1, 2012, the
Company filed its opposition to the Motion.  Ordonez's reply brief
was filed on October 31, 2012, and a hearing on the Motion was
held on November 19, 2012.

On January 17, 2013, the court denied Ordonez's Motion for Class
Certification as to all claims.  On February 4, 2013, Ordonez
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's denial of class
certification with regard to the rest period claim.

The Company says the outcome of this case is uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial statements in the period in
which the resolution is recorded.

RadioShack Corporation -- http://www.radioshack.com/-- sells
consumer electronics and peripherals, including cellular phones.
The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Final OK of "Sosinov" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation is awaiting final approval of its
settlement that will resolve class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, 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 November 2010 RadioShack received service of process with
respect to the first of four putative class action lawsuits filed
in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles Superior Court;
Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Central District of
California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Southern
District of California; and Grant v. RadioShack, San Francisco
Superior Court).  The plaintiffs in all of these cases seek
damages under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (the
"Act").  The Plaintiffs claim that under one section of the Act,
retailers are prohibited from recording certain personal
identification information regarding their customers while
processing credit card transactions unless certain statutory
exceptions are applicable.  The Act provides that any person who
violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent
violation.  In each of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company violated the Act by asking them for personal
identification information while processing a credit card
transaction and then recording it. In May 2011 the Bitter case was
stayed by the court pending the conclusion of the Sosinov case.
In June 2012, the Moreno case was settled for a nominal amount and
dismissed.

In July 2012, the Company reached a settlement of the Sosinov
case.  In November 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement.  Notices were sent to the class members.  The
final approval hearing occurred on March 27, 2013.  The class of
plaintiffs in the Sosinov case includes the plaintiffs in the
Grant and Bitter cases.  Therefore, resolving the Sosinov case
will resolve the Grant and Bitter claims, although the plaintiffs
in Bitter have filed an objection to the proposed settlement in
Sosinov.  The Company says the settlement will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.

RadioShack Corporation -- http://www.radioshack.com/-- sells
consumer electronics and peripherals, including cellular phones.
The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Negotiates Terms of Deal to Settle FACTA Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation disclosed in its April 23, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013, that it is still negotiating the
terms of a settlement agreement that will resolve a consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003.

On September 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Mr. Redman claims
that the Company violated certain provisions of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), which amended
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by displaying the expiration dates
of the Company's customers' credit or debit cards on
electronically printed transaction receipts.  Mr. Redman filed a
motion seeking to certify a class that includes all persons to
whom the Company provided an electronically printed transaction
receipt, in transactions occurring after June 3, 2008, that
displayed the expiration date of the person's credit or debit
card.  On November 3, 2011, Mario Aliano and Vitoria Radavicuite
filed a similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
also in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA.  Mr. Aliano and
Ms. Radavicuite initially filed a motion seeking to certify a
class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.  On December
28, 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radavicuite filed an amended
complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class that
was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois.  On January
11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the judge presiding
over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of relatedness, and the two
cases were consolidated for all purposes.  On January 25, 2012,
the presiding judge referred the matter to the magistrate judge
assigned to the consolidated cases for mediation, extending the
time by which the Company must respond to the pending complaints
to such time as the magistrate judge shall order, and holding the
motions for class certification in abeyance.

In November 2012 the parties reached a tentative settlement.  The
parties are currently negotiating the terms of a settlement
agreement.  The settlement has not been presented to the Court for
approval.

The Company says the outcome of these cases is still uncertain and
the ultimate resolution of them could have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial statements in the period in
which the resolution is recorded.

RadioShack Corporation -- http://www.radioshack.com/-- sells
consumer electronics and peripherals, including cellular phones.
The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


RITE AID: Assistant Managers' Litigation Has Concluded
------------------------------------------------------
The litigation brought on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation's
assistant store managers and co-managers has been concluded,
according to the Company's April 23, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 2, 2013.

Since December 2008, the Company has been named in a series of
fifteen (15) currently pending putative collective and class
action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts around the
country, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers and co-managers working in the Company's stores at
various locations outside California, including Craig et al v.
Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the
"Court") and Ibea et al v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The lawsuits allege that the Company failed to pay overtime
to salaried assistant store managers and co-managers as
purportedly required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and certain state statutes.  The lawsuits also seek other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal
claims for overtime pay.

The Company aggressively challenged both the merits of the
lawsuits and the allegation that the cases should be certified as
class or collective actions.  However, in light of the cost and
uncertainty involved in these lawsuits, in May 2012, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel to
resolve the series of lawsuits.  The parties filed a joint motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court which
was granted on June 18, 2012.  A final resolution of these matters
was subject to final Court approval.  The Court held a final
approval hearing on December 4, 2012, and issued an Order
approving the settlement on January 7, 2013.  The Order was not
appealed and is final.  Settlement funds to those who chose to
participate in the settlement were disbursed on March 13, 2013,
concluding the matter.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a retail
drugstore chain selling prescription drugs and a wide assortment
of other merchandise.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in "Indergit" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
class certification in the class action lawsuit styled Indergit v.
Rite Aid Corporation, et al., according to the Company's
April 23, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 2, 2013.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed
to pay overtime to store managers as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and under certain New York state statutes.
The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief
arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay.  On
April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007.  The Court ordered that
Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of
the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.  The
parties have fully briefed the issues of Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims and
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims and are
awaiting a ruling from the Court.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss
with respect to the lawsuit.  The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a retail
drugstore chain selling prescription drugs and a wide assortment
of other merchandise.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Still Defends Wage and Hour Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is currently a defendant in several putative
class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed
meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating.
These lawsuits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 23, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 2, 2013.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of
loss with respect to the lawsuits.  The Company's management
believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action
treatment.  The Company is vigorously defending all of these
claims.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a retail
drugstore chain selling prescription drugs and a wide assortment
of other merchandise.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.


SIX FLAGS: Settles 2008 Viral Outbreak Class Action for $1.3-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Lehman, writing for PostStar.com, reports that lawyers for Six
Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark have agreed to settle
a class action lawsuit over a 2008 viral outbreak at the park for
$1.3 million.

The settlement was outlined on May 7 during a hearing before state
Supreme Court Justice David Krogmann involving lawyers for
plaintiffs and Six Flags.

Justice Krogmann has given preliminary approval to the settlement,
pending notice to the 650 or so people who came forward to the
state Department of Health after they suffered bouts of vomiting
and diarrhea following visits to the hotel and water park in March
2008.  The illness was believed to have stemmed from a strain of
norovirus present in a pool area of the water park, officials
said.

The judge called the settlement "reasonable and appropriate"
during the half-hour hearing.  Justice Krogmann said lawyer James
Hacker helped broker the settlement as a mediator.

"It's a fair and reasonable settlement," said lawyer James Peluso,
whose firm was one of two that represented the plaintiffs.  "It
was reached in good faith through mediation with a neutral party."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs would receive one-third of the award,
which would leave $866,667 to be divided among plaintiffs.  In
addition to Mr. Peluso's firm, Dreyer Boyajian LLP of Albany,
DeGraff, Foy & Kunz LLP of Albany represented plaintiffs as well.

Six Flags was represented by John VanDenburgh of Albany, who did
not return a phone call for comment on May 7.

Rebecca Close, Six Flags' local spokeswoman, said the company did
not admit that its property was the source of the illness, and the
settlement was a decision by the company's insurance carrier to
avoid costs of litigation.

"We maintain the illness did not originate on our property," she
said.

Great Escape maintains health and water quality standards above
what the Department of Health requires, she said.

The four named plaintiffs who initially filed the lawsuit will
each receive $5,000.  The remaining plaintiffs will receive an
average of $1,300 or so if the money is distributed evenly.

Justice Krogmann said the amount of the awards to the plaintiffs
could vary depending on the extent of the illnesses and how many
people come forward to become part of the class, however.

The settlement was to be publicized in The Post-Star and Times
Union newspapers May 17 to advise those who may wish to make a
claim or object to the settlement.  They will have until June 3 to
file written objections, and a "fairness hearing" will be held
before Justice Krogmann on June 17.  Justice Krogmann will decide
after that hearing whether the settlement will be approved.


TELETECH SERVICES: Continues to Defend Suit Over "Recorded" Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Company's agreement with Google, Google has made a
claim for full indemnification from the Company for all expenses
incurred by Google in connection with the lawsuit. The ultimate
outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the
possible loss, if any, related to this litigation, cannot
reasonably be determined at this time. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in these proceedings, according to
Teletech Holding Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


TIGER BRANDS: Mukaddan Appeals Ruling on Class Representative Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Business Report, the Constitutional Court was due to
hear an appeal on May 7 by Imraahn Ismail Mukaddan against the
Supreme Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss a request by
Mr. Mukaddan that he be certified as a class representative in a
proposed class action suit by bread distributors against bread
producers.

Mr. Mukaddan was involved in the initial case that was brought
against the bread producers all those years ago.

The case, which centered on charges of collusion, became a public
relations nightmare for the major bread producers such Tiger
Brands and Pioneer Foods.

In 2007 Tiger Brands was fined R98.8 million and its then chief
executive, Nick Dennis, who was slammed by the Competition
Tribunal, decided to resign from the company he had dominated for
most of the previous 10 years.

Pioneer did not do much better.  It persistently denied
involvement in any collusive or anti-competitive actions until
finally at the end of 2010 the Department of Economic Development
announced a rather complex mix of fines and subsidies that Pioneer
would have to pay to settle increasing allegations of anti-
competitive behavior.

Premier Foods got off comparatively lightly as it was the first to
"fess up" to the charges and so benefited from the commission's
corporate leniency policy.

But, and here is a major challenge for the competition
authorities, what about compensation for the victims of this
collusive activity?

So far no victim of collusive activity has succeeded in taking a
class action against the perpetrators.  Through his bid before the
Constitutional Court, Mr. Mukaddan appears to be trying to change
that.  If he is successful it would set an extremely interesting
precedent.

And no doubt the 18 construction companies that are currently
trying to reach an agreement with the commission are watching
events closely.  It would of course be much easier to identify
victims and the extent of damage incurred as a result of collusive
behavior in the construction industry than it would in the bread
industry.


TRAVELERS COS: "Safeco" Suit Returned to Illinois District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., said in its April 23, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that the class action lawsuit,
in which a subsidiary is a plaintiff, was returned to the Illinois
District Court for administration of a settlement.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, a Company subsidiary, is one of
the Settlement Class plaintiffs and a class member in a class
action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance Company of America, et
al. v. American International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District
Court, N.D. Ill.) in which the defendants are alleged to have
engaged in the under-reporting of workers' compensation premium in
connection with a workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which
several subsidiaries of the Company participate.  On
July 26, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of a class
settlement pursuant to which the defendants agreed to pay $450
million to the class.  The settlement includes a plan of
allocation of the settlement proceeds among the class members.  On
December 21, 2011, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement, and on February 28, 2012, the district
court issued a written opinion regarding its approval of the
settlement.  On March 27, 2012, three parties who objected to the
settlement appealed the court's orders approving the settlement to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On January 11, 2013, all parties, including the three parties who
had objected to the settlement, filed a Stipulation of Dismissal
indicating that there were no longer any objections to the
settlement.  On March 25, 2013, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the
appeals.  On April 16, 2013, the Seventh Circuit issued its
mandate returning the case to the district court for
administration of the settlement.

The Company anticipates that its allocation from the settlement
fund will be approximately $90 million.  This amount is treated
for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in accordance with
FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly will be recognized
in the Company's consolidated financial statements during the
period in which the settlement has received final court approval
and payment to the Company is assured.

New York-based The Travelers Companies, Inc. --
http://investor.travelers.com/-- is an insurance company
providing business, financial, professional, international,
property and personal coverage.


TRAVELERS COS: Still Awaits Appellate Ruling in Asbestos Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., is still awaiting an appellate
court decision in asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and other insurers (not including The
St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004)
in state court in West Virginia.  These and other cases
subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia.  The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants
engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes
by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims.  The
plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims
and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages,
directly on insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate
handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in
Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts.  These lawsuits are
collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the lawsuits
violated injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of
the Johns-Manville bankruptcy (the "1986 Orders").  The bankruptcy
court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the
parties to mediation.  In November 2003, the parties reached a
settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a
lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.  Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the "Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.  Although the
District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds.  The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010, and its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met.  On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the settlements.  The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011, in accordance with this ruling
and ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment
interest.  The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the
district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found
that the conditions to the settlements had not been met in view of
the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 ruling permitting the filing
of contribution claims against TPC.  The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Oral argument before the Second Circuit took
place on January 10, 2013, and the parties await the court's
decision.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, from time to time has been named as a
defendant in direct action cases in Texas state court asserting
common law claims.  All such cases that are still pending and in
which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in
Texas state court.  If any of those cases becomes active, SPC
intends to litigate those cases vigorously.  SPC was previously a
defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio state court, which
have been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and
appellate courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries
have been named in similar individual direct actions in other
jurisdictions.

Currently, the Company says it is not possible to predict legal
outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and
litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any
such development will be affected by future court decisions and
interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation.
Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise
for amounts in excess of the Company's current reserves.  In
addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim
adjustment expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or
increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be
reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges
that could be material to the Company's results of operations in
future periods.

New York-based The Travelers Companies, Inc. --
http://investor.travelers.com/-- is an insurance company
providing business, financial, professional, international,
property and personal coverage.


TRAVELZOO INC: N.Y. Court Junks Stock Suit; Plaintiffs Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a decision and order, granting defendants' motions to
dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit against Travelzoo Inc.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint was filed.

The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
alleging that between March 16, 2011 and July 21, 2011, the
Company and/or the individual defendants purportedly issued
materially false and misleading statements.

In particular, the complaint asserts, among other things,
allegations challenging certain statements relating to the
Company's growth. The complaint also makes allegations regarding
the Company's Getaway business and asserts that certain officers
and directors sold stock while in possession of materially adverse
non-public information.

The action seeks unspecified damages and the Company is not able
to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could
potentially result from the action. On March 29, 2013, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a
decision and order, granting defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissing the securities action. The plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal. The Company continues to believe that the action
is without merit and intends to defend the suits vigorously.


UNITED NATIONS: May Face Class Action Over Haiti Cholera Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Boston-based human rights
group said on May it will sue the United Nations in 60 days if the
world body does not agree to compensate Haitian cholera victims,
apologize to the Caribbean nation for introducing the disease
through its peacekeeping force, and launch a major effort to
improve sanitation.

Lawyers for the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti said
they hoped to be able to settle with the United Nations but are
ready to go to court in New York if that fails.

The announcement was the group's response to a U.N. letter in
February saying it is legally immune and was not responsible for
the cholera outbreak that has sickened nearly 500,000 people and
killed over 7,750 people since the outbreak began in October 2010.

The Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti cites independent
studies suggesting that the disease was inadvertently brought to
Haiti by a U.N. peacekeeping battalion from Nepal, where cholera
is endemic.  A local contractor failed to properly sanitize the
waste of a U.N. base, and the bacteria leaked into a tributary of
one of Haiti's biggest rivers, according to one study by a U.N.-
appointed panel.

Haiti's cholera epidemic followed a Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake that
killed 316,000 people and displaced more than a million others.

Brian Concannon, the institute's director, said the U.N. asserted
its immunity in its recent letter.

"They may have immunity, but they don't have impunity," said Ira
Kurzban, another lawyer preparing the lawsuit.

Mr. Concannon and Ms. Kurzban said they are operating on the legal
principle that if the United Nations does not respond to appeals
for justice, and leaves the plaintiffs with no legal recourse, the
U.N. loses its immunity.

The U.N.-installed water system pumped sewage directed into the
river, and "This was the system's normal operation," said Mr.
Concannon.

Haiti had not had a problem with cholera since the 1800s until the
2010 outbreak, said Dr. Jean Ford Figaro, a Haitian doctor
speaking for the lawsuit.  He said the death toll has now
surpassed 8,000, citing Haitian Health Ministry figures.

UCLA's School of Public Health sent a field mission to Haiti after
the outbreak to study its origin.  One of the school's professors,
Renaud Piarroux, later wrote that the study confirmed the epidemic
was imported and started around the Nepalese peacekeepers' camp,
then "spread explosively due to massive contamination of the
water."

A study of the bacteria conducted in 2010 by scientists at Pacific
Biosciences of California Inc. mapped its genome, the set of genes
that makes any organism unique.  The Haitian strain is almost
identical to types found in South Asia and differs greatly from
those circulating in nearby Latin America, according to the
analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine.  That
suggested humans carried the Asian strain into Haiti, though it
did not pinpoint the country of origin.

Mr. Concannon said that if there is no settlement, the Institute
for Justice and Democracy in Haiti will take the United Nations to
court in 60 days.  He told the AP that they will probably sue in
New York State court initially, and anticipated that the United
Nations will counter by saying the case should go to U.S. federal
court.  He and Ms. Kurzban said they are also planning a lawsuit
in a European venue.

The institute is seeking a minimum of $100,000 for each bereaved
family and $50,000 for each cholera survivor.  It has at least
8,000 people ready to join the lawsuit, Mr. Concannon said.

When the original compensation claim was filed with the secretary-
general and the claims unit for the U.N. peacekeeping mission in
Haiti in 2011, Mr. Concannon said he hoped the U.N. peacekeeping
force would create a lifesaving program that would provide
sanitation, potable water and medical treatment.  He also said he
wanted a public apology for the victims.

In December, Ban announced a $2.27 billion initiative to help
eradicate cholera in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which share
the island of Hispaniola, and vowed to work aggressively to secure
donations for the ambitious but still mostly unfunded 10-year
plan.

"It's currently an initiative that doesn't look like it's going to
make a difference," Mr. Concannon said.

He noted that the United Nations is only putting up about 1 to 2
percent of the funds for that plan, and said it was an initiative
launched just six week after the institute had filed its initial
claim.

Mr. Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, has said that the secretary-
general "again expresses his profound sympathy for the terrible
suffering caused by the cholera epidemic, and calls on all
partners in Haiti and the international community to work together
to ensure better health and a better future for the people of
Haiti."


US AIRWAYS: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With AMR
----------------------------------------------------------
US Airways Group, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit over its
proposed merger with AMR Corporation, 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.

On February 14, 2013, US Airways Group announced its intention to
merge with AMR Corporation, the parent company of American
Airlines, Inc. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, US Airways
Group will become a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR and the merged
company will be operated under the single brand name of American
Airlines.  The Merger is to be effected pursuant to a plan of
reorganization in AMR's currently pending cases under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court.

On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605 was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona in Maricopa County.  The
complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and the members of
its board of directors, and alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the AMR Merger by
failing to maximize the value of US Airways Group and ignoring or
failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and that US
Airways Group aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
The complaint seeks a declaration that the Merger Agreement is
unenforceable, an injunction against the Merger, or rescission in
the event it has been consummated, imposition of a constructive
trust, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and other relief.  The Company believes this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
the allegations.

Based in Tempe, Arizona, US Airways Group, Inc., --
http://www.usairways.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides
air transportation for passengers and cargo. It offers scheduled
passenger service on approximately 3,100 flights daily to 200
communities in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the
Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central and South America; and
hourly shuttle service between Boston, LaGuardia, and Washington
National.


WELLS FARGO: Seeks to Cancel Lawsuit's Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk & Beth Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg News,
reported that Wells Fargo & Co., citing "new facts," asked a judge
to revoke the class-action status he bestowed on a lawsuit by
institutional investors, who claimed the bank marketed a risky
securities-lending program as safe.

According to the report, Wells Fargo asked U.S. District Judge
Donovan W. Frank in St. Paul, Minnesota, to revisit his decision
allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their action together instead of
individually, giving them greater leverage to obtain a settlement.
The bank is also seeking dismissal of multiple investor claims.

The report said Frank certified the case as a group lawsuit last
year, finding that common questions predominated, including
whether San Francisco-based Wells Fargo "knew or should have known
that the investments it selected did not comport with investment
mandates."

The case was filed in 2010 by the City of Farmington Hills
Employees Retirement System, a Michigan pension fund, on behalf of
more than 100 other institutional investors.  They claim breach of
fiduciary duty and fraud.

"There are significant new facts that have come to light and
significant new arguments that have come to light that could not
have been known at the time of certification," Dan Millea, a Wells
Fargo attorney, told the judge.

                              'Sold Out'

The lead plaintiff, Farmington Hills, differs from other investors
and there's no classwide method for calculating damages, Millea
said.  "Farmington Hills exited the program and sold out
completely.  Other members are either still in or paid to get
out."

These differences don't mean that a class shouldn't be certified,
Peter Binkow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at the hearing.
Damages would be calculated by how much principal was lost, he
told the judge.  How investors got into or out of the program
doesn't matter, he said.

"There's really no issue on damages." he said.

The lawsuit, set for trial Sept. 16, is one of at least five
against Wells Fargo over its securities lending.  A case brought
by nonprofit organizations led by Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Minnesota goes to trial next month in federal court in St. Paul.
In another, the Minnesota Life Insurance Co. claims $40 million in
damages.

Wells Fargo lost a $30 million jury verdict in 2010 in a claim
brought by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Reinsurance
Association and three charitable foundations.  The verdict was
upheld on appeal.  The lawsuits have been brought in Minnesota
where the Wells Fargo securities lending program was located.

                       'Investment Guidelines'

Investments made by Wells Fargo Securities Lending "were in
accordance with investment guidelines and were prudent and
suitable at the time of purchase," Laura Fay, a spokeswoman for
the bank, said in an e-mailed statement.  "We strongly deny the
allegations that were made in these lawsuits."

Securities lending is a practice whereby investors lend stock or
other investments to banks or brokers.  In return, the bank places
cash collateral on behalf of the investor into short-term
investments until the shares are returned.  It has been
traditionally viewed by pension funds and foundations as a low-
risk investment.

The pension fund and other class members participated in an
investment program in which Wells Fargo would hold its clients'
securities in custodial accounts and make temporary loans of these
securities to brokers.

The brokers would borrow the securities to support their trading
activities, such as short sales and option contracts, and would
post collateral worth at least 102 percent of the value of the
securities, the plaintiffs said in court papers.

                        'Highly Secure'

The Michigan pension plan claims Wells Fargo promoted its
securities-lending program "as a highly secure way for its
institutional clients to maximize portfolio returns."  Instead,
the pension fund said, "Wells Fargo invested a substantial portion
of the collateral in extremely risky securities."

Wells Fargo also invested in "highly illiquid securities,"
including structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, asset-backed
and mortgage-backed securities, the plaintiffs said in the
complaint.  The SIVs proved particularly risky during the mortgage
crisis, they said.

"We do not believe that Wells Fargo in any meaningful manner tried
to assess liquidity," plaintiffs' attorney Avi Wagner said.

                              Investor Claims

The investors claim Wells Fargo concealed investment performance
to keep them from exiting the lending program.  They allege breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and violation of Minnesota's
Consumer Fraud Act.

The class includes participants in the Wells Fargo securities
lending program starting on January 1, 2006, "who suffered losses
to the program's purchase and maintenance of high risk, long-term
securities," Frank said in his order.

Wells Fargo blamed any losses on the financial crisis.

"Market conditions severely deteriorated and had a major impact on
the global financial markets and worldwide economies" from 2007 to
2009, said Fay, the bank spokeswoman.  "During that time, the
market for even the highest-rated debt instruments, such as those
invested in by WFSL, deteriorated substantially."

The Michigan pension fund and the class "suffered no recoverable
damages," lawyers for the bank said in court papers in November.
"Any losses sustained by plaintiff and the class were caused by
persons, entities or other factors for which Wells Fargo was not
and is not responsible."

                           Losses 'Offset'

Alleged losses were "offset, in whole or in part, by profits in
their accounts with Wells Fargo and profits arising from purchases
of other fixed-income instruments that would be considered
'unsuitable' according to the allegations of plaintiff and the
class," the bank's attorneys wrote.

Wells Fargo also asked the judge to dismiss claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and the consumer law violation.

The plaintiffs haven't proven that "but for" Wells Fargo's
actions, investment losses wouldn't have occurred, Lindsey Davis,
an attorney for the bank, said at the hearing.

"The plaintiffs have not created a 'but for' world comprised of
appropriate investments," she said.

In approving a class action, the judge wrote that it is superior
to multiple individual lawsuits in promoting "the interests of
judicial economy and efficiency."

"Class members who may not otherwise have the means to litigate
their claims will likely benefit greatly from a class action, and
a class action will ensure that class members who are otherwise
unaware that they possess a claim will have their rights
represented," he wrote.

                      'Illiquidity Risk'

The lawsuit particularly targets Wells Fargo's investments in
structured investment vehicles.  The plaintiffs sought
"conservative, safe and liquid investments," their lawyers wrote.
"SIVs have a built-in illiquidity risk."

"SIVs borrow money by issuing short-term securities, usually
commercial paper, at lower interest rates," according to the
complaint.  "The SIVs then lend money by buying long-term assets
at higher interest rates," making a profit off the spread, the
lawyers said.

"To survive, SIVs need a constant infusion of new short-term
refinancing, at favorable rates," they said.  This financing fell
apart when the mortgage crisis caused a "liquidity crunch" in the
short-term commercial paper market, leading to defaults by two of
the SIVs in which Wells Fargo had heavily invested, Cheyne Finance
SIV and the Stanfield Victoria SIV, according to the complaint.
Both went into receivership, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

Frank will first oversee a trial to start June 17 in a case
brought against Wells Fargo by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Minnesota and 10 other nonprofits, including the pension plans of
St. John's University, Meijer Inc. and El Paso County.

The class action is City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement
System v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 10-cv-04372, U.S. District Court,
District of Minnesota (St. Paul).


WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Professor Unveils Data on Job Placement Study
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the job market for graduating law students is not quite as
depressing as pundits and law school critics make it out to be.
We're just not tracking students long enough to see how they
eventually fared.

That's at least the argument -- albeit a self-serving but not
necessarily wrong-headed one -- floated in a new essay by D.
Benjamin Barros, a law professor and associate dean for faculty
research and development at Widener University School of Law's
Pennsylvania campus.

Much of the "crisis" coverage relies on data that law schools
report to the American Bar Association, which considers a graduate
employed if the person has a job and is starting work by the time
mid-February rolls around, typically nine months after graduation.

Mr. Barros, in a paper he posted on the Social Science Research
Network, says those figures don't tell the whole story, claiming
more Widener students are finding jobs, just not that quickly.

The timing of the paper may raise some eyebrows.  Mr. Barros, a
faculty member and administrator, is distributing his findings
against the backdrop of litigation on the same subject.  Widener
is battling a lawsuit by several of its graduates who claim the
school touted misleading job placement and salary statistics to
induce students to enroll at inflated tuitions.

More than a dozen law schools have been hit with similar lawsuits
since 2011.  While at least two of the suits have been dismissed,
including a class action against New York Law School, a judge has
refused to toss out the one against Widener.

A spokeswoman for Widener said the school has fully complied with
the American Bar Association's data reporting requirements.

To prove his point, Mr. Barros tracked down most of Widener-
Harrisburg's graduating class of 2010 and 2011, using information
from Widener, public databases and, in some cases, contacting
graduates individually with the help of a pack of research
assistants and secretaries.  He said he found all but about 8% of
graduates, whom he treated as unemployed in his percentages, an
approach he called "conservative."

Less than 50% of the Class of 2010 reported having permanent legal
jobs requiring bar passage nine months after graduating, according
to his paper, which based that data on similarly categorized
figures reported to the ABA.  Relying on his own data, he extends
out the results.  By 2013, or almost three years after graduates
entered the market, 80.4% of that same class landed those kind of
jobs, he claims.  Things also looked brighter for the Class of
2011, too -- 47% versus 74%.

"I want to be very clear about what I am NOT arguing.  I am not
arguing that the current legal job market is great -- it is not,"
Mr. Barros writes.

He says the nine-month numbers "provide an important snapshot of
graduate employment."  But he says there's a perception when
looking at the ABA data that if X% of graduates of a particular
class got legal jobs, only X% of that class ever got legal jobs.

Says Mr. Barros: "Nine month data, however, simply does not tell
the whole story of the employment outcomes for any particular
graduating class.  The timing of the bar exam is part of the story
here.  So is, I think, the economy.  My anecdotal impression,
which I think is backed up by the data from my study, was that
many of my former students were getting good jobs, but it was
taking some of them longer than it had in the past to get these
jobs because of the poor economy."

Mr. Barros told Law Blog he couldn't talk about the lawsuit
against the university, but said he conducted the study "on his
own initiative" and started his research months before the lawsuit
was filed.  He said he assumes his research would wind up as
evidence in a discovery phase of the litigation.  "To the extent
that lawsuit is anyway relevant, [the paper] should make my
credibility stronger," said Mr. Barros.

His study serves a counterpoint to the bleaker conclusions drawn
by University of St. Thomas Law Professor Jerry Organ, who relied
on nine-month ABA data for his recent graduate-employment study.
"It would be wonderful if more schools did something like Widener
and tried to track employment over a longer period of time," Mr.
Organ told Law Blog.  "That would provide a "better basis to
evaluate return on investment," he said.

A spokeswoman for Widener called Mr. Barros's research "thoughtful
and compelling."  The ABA declined comment.

"I would concur with the sentiments that it is not reasonable to
treat the nine-month numbers as the final word on employment for a
particular class of graduates," said James Leipold, executive
director of the National Association for Law Placement, a trade
group that collects legal employment data.


XEROX CORP: Shareholders Appeal Court Ruling in Conn. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in "In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation"
filed a notice of appeal against a court decision granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation is a consolidated
securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G.
Richard Thoman. The consolidated action is a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation
common stock during the period October 22, 1998 through October 7,
1999 inclusive (Class Period) and who suffered a loss as a result
of misrepresentations or omissions by Defendants as alleged by
Plaintiffs (the "Class").

The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act), and
SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues. The complaint further
alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing public
regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth,
operations and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;
(ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common
stock of the Company while in possession of materially adverse,
non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs
and the other members of the purported class to purchase common
stock of the Company at inflated prices. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the other members of the purported class against all defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In
February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No.
164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius (Agius) and Georgia Stanley to
appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the
Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After
that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and
proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a
second renewed motion for class certification. In April 2008,
defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg
LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008, the Court entered an
order certifying the class and denying the appointment of Milberg
LLP as class counsel.

Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants'
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP. On November 6, 2008, the
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 29, 2013,
the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in its
entirety. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 26,
2013. The individual defendants and Xerox deny any wrongdoing and
are vigorously defending the action.


* GOAL Sees Rise in Non-US Securities Class Action Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new forecast study from GOAL Group predicts that settlements in
securities class actions outside the U.S. will rise to USD8.3
billion per year by 2020.  GOAL Group's study also identifies that
if non-participation rates seen in U.S. class actions are
experienced in non-U.S. activity, by the end of the decade
USD2.02 billion of investors' rightful returns will be left
unreclaimed each year.

Furthermore, the report also warns that because non-U.S.
legislatures require participants to register at the beginning of
a case, investors need to participate now to receive their
rightful returns.  Any level of non-participation presents
fiduciaries, such as fund managers and custodians, with a
potential legal risk.  Experience in the U.S., along with emerging
contractual obligations, suggests that fiduciaries may be sued if
they do not ensure investors participate in class actions to
recoup a proportion of their investment losses.

This is a wake-up call to fiduciaries, as growth in non-U.S.
collective actions and evidence that some custodians are
restricting the geography of their class action service level,
indicate that non-participation rates are likely to be at least at
current U.S. case levels, and probably considerably higher.
Moreover, evidence is emerging that funds are now including the
responsibility for class action identification and participation
in contractual agreements with their custodians.

Stephen Everard, CEO, GOAL Group, comments, "Until recently, the
main focus of securities class actions was on the U.S. as the most
developed legislature in this respect.  However, class action
growth outside the U.S. is now increasing rapidly, and is
predicted to mirror the growth of the U.S. class action scene in
the early part of the 21st century.  The root of this
international diversification seems to have been a combination of
restrictions on jurisdiction definitions in the U.S. Federal
courts, along with a growing desire to develop domestic class
action procedures in many countries around the globe.  Moreover,
certain legislatures -- currently The Netherlands and Canada --
have defined and admitted the idea of a global 'class' where non-
U.S. investors in shares listed on a non-U.S. exchange can pursue
their securities class actions in those countries' courts.  There
is no viable excuse for non-participation as a number of
specialist service providers can now perform this function at
relatively low cost."

                           Methodology

Predicted annual settlement volumes for non-U.S. legislatures have
been modelled through to a forward date of 2020, the end of the
decade.  Using GOAL's proprietary data and insights, combined with
corroborative third party sources, the model utilizes the U.S.
class actions experience to estimate the size of annual
settlements in other world markets after a further eight years of
class actions development in these countries and in legislatures
that accept international plaintiff representation and reparation.
GOAL's predictive model adopts a conservative positioning,
factoring out the major peaks of settlement values seen in the
U.S. experience to date.

                 About GOAL Group Limited (GOAL)

Established in 1989, GOAL is a class actions and tax reclamation
services specialist.


* Ontario Mulls Rules to Address Class Action Limitation Period
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McFarland, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Ontario government is contemplating rules that would give a leg up
to investors trying to pursue class-action lawsuits against
companies accused of misrepresenting their financial results.

The recent provincial budget mentioned a possible change to the
Ontario Securities Act that would suspend the controversial time
limit currently facing investors seeking court permission to
proceed with a class-action suit against a company.

The government offered little detail on the change, but suggested
a decision on how to proceed would be made following the outcome
of "current court cases that the government is monitoring closely"
and could lead to a decision to suspend the time limit "if
needed."

There are currently three high-profile cases involving shareholder
lawsuits against Imax Corp., Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
and Celestica Inc. that were set to be heard by the Ontario Court
of Appeal before a special five-judge panel.  In all three cases,
investors allege the companies misreported or hid information
about their financial results, and shareholders were hurt when
share prices later fell.

The hearings were set to include an in-depth review of a
controversial appeal court decision from February, 2012, involving
Timminco Ltd., which was accused of defrauding investors by making
false claims that it had discovered a cheaper way to make solar
panels.  In that decision, the appeal court imposed a three-year
time limit for plaintiffs to get permission from a judge for a
class-action to proceed.

The Timminco decision caused an outcry from lawyers who fight on
behalf of shareholders.  They said a three-year limit from the
time a company makes an alleged misrepresentation is far too short
given the inherent delays in the court system, the complexity of
the cases and the ability of lawyers to use legal tactics to delay
hearings.  Lawyers working for companies, however, said the time
limit was needed to keep cases from hanging over companies for
many years.

Class action lawyer Kirk Baert said the Timminco decision means
lawyers have to get leave to launch a class action within three
years of the date of the misrepresentation -- not the date when it
comes to light -- which can give rise to a tight deadline to
react.  Even if investors learn of a problem quickly, he said
experience has shown that the cases cannot get through Toronto's
clogged courts in three years, with most taking at least four
years to get leave approved, he said.

Mr. Baert said the Timminco ruling now means companies have a huge
incentive to cause delays at every stage to push cases past the
three-year limit.  He said the government should amend the
legislation to say there is no time limit once the class-action
case has been filed.  "If you give people an incentive to delay
doing something, they will."

Securities lawyer Larry Lowenstein said it would be preferable for
Ontario to amend its legislation with a clear statement about how
the time limit will work, rather than leave it to appeal court
judges to grapple with interpreting the existing rules.  "I think
if you're going to make a change, it's better by legislation than
by uncertain, judge-made rules."

He added it is "unfortunate" the government has said it will watch
the outcome of current cases and then make amendments to suspend
the time limits if necessary, because it gives the impression the
government is signalling to the court what decision should be
made.  "The government has stepped in and in effect put its thumb
on the scale on the side of the plaintiffs, and that's a political
decision," Mr. Lowenstein said.

Class-action lawyer Dimitri Lascaris said it would ideal if the
province would move ahead without waiting for the appeal court to
take the lead with its rulings.  He said Manitoba has already
suspended its deadline for seeking court approval to proceed with
a class-action.

"I think it's time for all legislatures to take action," he said.

Mr. Lascaris said he will be particularly interested to see how a
new Ontario rule would affect cases that have already passed the
three-year time line, questioning whether the rule would be
applied retroactively to them as well.

Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, that it's one bullet
point buried deep in the Ontario budget but it could have big
implications for the class action bar.

On page 290 of the budget, under a section regarding consultations
with the Ontario Securities Commission, it's noted the government
"plans to propose further changes to update the Securities Act."
That may include, "if needed, following current court cases that
the government is monitoring closely, suspending the operation of
the secondary market civil liability limitation period while leave
to proceed is being sought."

"My assumption is that it's speaking to the Timminco case," says
Jeremy Devereux, a partner with Norton Rose Canada LLP, referring
to Sharma v. Timminco Ltd., which denied a class action based on
limitation period.

Mr. Devereux notes there are also three major cases going before
the five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal.

"The government wants the public to know it's an issue they're
aware of and state their position, which seems to be that if it
turns out the limitation period does expire in three years, even
though leave is being sought, it seems this government's is saying
they are going to change that."

The cases include Silver v. Imax, Trustees of the Millwright
Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celesetica Inc.,
and Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

"It looks like they're waiting to see what happens with the cases
currently before the Court of Appeal," he says.  "If the Court of
Appeal finds a way of saying that the limitation period does
expire in three years -- provided you're actually seeking leave to
appeal from the court -- even if it hasn't been granted yet, I
presume the government would say there is no longer a problem, we
won't do anything.

"But if the Court of Appeal says no, the limitation period does
expire within three years, if you have not obtained leave, the
government will intervene and amend the legislation to make it
clear the limitation period stops running while leave is being
sought."

If a plaintiff intended to commence a securities class action,
once they served the materials for leave under the Securities Act,
then it would have the effect of stopping the limitation period
from running.

Mr. Devereux notes that Justice Katherine van Rensburg in Imax and
Justice Paul Perell in Celestica both found a way to allow the
cases to continue even though leave had not been granted within
the three year period.

Last July, in Green v. CIBC, Justice George Strathy took a
different position and refused to certify based on expiration of
the limitation period.  In his view of the law, he wasn't able to
allow the case to continue.  However, he noted in his decision
that if it had not been "time-barred" he ". . . would have granted
leave to pursue the statutory cause of action, and would have
certified this action as a class proceeding for that purpose."

Other items noted in the budget regarding the OSC indicate there
is interest in updating the Securities Act including:

   -- expanding the insider-trading and self-dealing provisions,
including in relation to their application to investment funds;

   -- updating disclosure requirements for the exchange traded
funds to provide plain-language, concise and comparable disclosure
to investors that is more consistent with requirements that apply
to mutual funds; and

   -- updating early-warning reporting and related requirements
for take-over bids to provide more transparency to regulators and
the public.


* SEC Faces Pressure From Mandatory Arbitration Clause Critics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mont, writing for Compliance Week, reports that critics of the
mandatory arbitration demands broker-dealers and investment
advisers often require of their customers have stepped up their
fight to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to either
limit or end the practice.

In a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Jo White, the North American
Securities Administrators Association, a coalition of state
securities regulators, wrote that the "take it or leave it"
approach of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses is harmful
to investors.  She was reminded that the Dodd-Frank Act provides
the Commission with authority to limit or prohibit these clauses,
a power it has yet to exercise.

Criticism of the controversial clauses has intensified since
February, when a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel
ruled that Charles Schwab Corp. had the right to bar customers
from engaging in class action lawsuits against it.  In September
2011, the firm amended its customer account agreement to include a
class-action waiver provision, requiring that all disputes be
arbitrated.  FINRA's Enforcement Department challenged the move
because its rules prohibit the use of such waivers by brokerage
and investment banking firms.  The FINRA disciplinary panel,
however, ultimately upheld Schwab's right to do so.

Schwab had argued that legal precedent established by the Supreme
Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and Compucredit Corp. v.
Greenwood held that that federal regulations must also comply with
the Federal Arbitration Act, which requires that parties agreeing
to arbitration must do so instead of going to court.  It also
precludes state and federal courts from invalidating arbitration
clauses.  FINRA had countered that its rules are not governed by
the FAA, but the disciplinary panel determined otherwise, on the
rationale that because its rules are subject to approval by the
SEC it must comply with federal statutes, including the FAA.

The SEC has since come under fire for its failure to step in.

"Regardless of the erroneous decision by the FINRA Hearing Panel,
Congress has expressed its clear intent that the SEC is empowered
to take action with respect to mandatory pre-dispute arbitration
clauses in broker-dealer and investment adviser customer
contracts, and the SEC should not permit Charles Schwab to subvert
the clear intent of Congress," wrote A. Heath Abshure, Arkansas
Securities Commissioner and NASAA president.

Speaking on behalf of his organization, Mr. Abshure wrote that by
banning class action suits, firms will insulate themselves from
"having to pay damages to investors who have small claims and
cannot afford to file" and "thousands of investors who will never
even know they have a cause of action."

"Arbitration cases are basically secret proceedings, not open to
the public, and rarely publicized," he added.  "The only way many
investors learn that they have been defrauded is via a class
action notice."

Also voicing concern to Ms. White was Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.),
in a letter also signed by signed by 15 senators and 22 House
members, all of them Democrats.

"In the almost three years since the Dodd-Frank Act's enactment,
the Commission has largely disregarded this important mandate,"
they wrote, invoking the legislation's call for it to oversee the
practice.  "The time is ripe for the Commission to act to protect
the investing public and prevent further abuse of forced
arbitration contracts."

Although anecdotal evidence suggests the use of mandatory
arbitration agreements is widespread, the legislators expressed
concern about the lack of "reliable data" regarding the practice.
It urged the Commission to track how many brokerage firms are
inserting mandatory arbitration agreements and class action
waivers into consumer contracts, "so that this questionable
practice may be better monitored and addressed."

SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar has expressed solidarity with
mandatory arbitration critics.

"Investors should have the unencumbered right to seek redress in
all available forums," he said during a speech last month at an
NASAA conference in Washington D.C.  Providing investors with the
ability to choose their forum for legal claims would "enhance
investor protection and add more teeth to our federal securities
laws," he said.

On a related matter, Mr. Aguilar noted that nearly three years
after the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act the SEC has also failed to
make good on a mandate to establish an Office of the Investor
Advocate.


                             *********

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  * * *