CAR_Public/130522.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 100

                             Headlines


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles Texas Tax Shelter Class Action
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Judge Tosses Life Insurance Class Action Claims
AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls 54,700 Microwave Popcorn Makers
BANK OF AMERICA: New York May Drop Claims Over Merrill Acquisition
BLIZZARD: May Face Class Action Over Diablo III RMAH Exploit

BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Class Cert. Denial in Workers' Suit Reversed
CHARLES SCHWAB: Regulators Join Fight Against Class Action Waiver
CHARLES SCHWAB: NASAA Supports Fight Against Class Action Waiver
CODA HOLDINGS: Recalls Sedan to Repair Side-Curtain Air Bags
COMCAST CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $7 Modem Fee

COMCAST CORP: Certification of "Philadelphia Cluster" Case Flipped
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Antitrust MDL in Pa.
COMPTON UNIFIED: Accused of Discriminating Latinos and Hispanics
DONA ANA: Nursing Students File Class Action Over Accreditation
ELSIE MASON: Court Allows Class Action Over Bedbugs to Proceed

EXPERIAN PLC: Lawyers Leave Behind Clients in Settlement Conflicts
FORD MOTOR: Wolfe Discusses Notable Aspects in Acceleration Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Action Over SSRI Birth Defects Set to Begin
GOOGLE INC: Judges Think Book Scanning Case Should Be Broken Up
HEARST CORP: Unpaid Interns Intend to Pursue Lawsuit

HOSPIRA INC.: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Illinois Court
HORIZON LINES: Lawsuit Over Alaska Tradelane Services Stayed
HYATT HOTELS: Continues to Face Antitrust MDL in Texas
INVESTORS BANCORP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suit Over Merger
IVY ASSET: Judge Approves Attorney Fees in Feeder Fund Suit

JOLLY GOOD: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
KROGER CO: Judge Refuses to Reconsider "Robocall" Ruling
LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
MOD-PAC CORP: Shareholders File Suit Over Planned Merger

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Forbes Says Ruling May Cause League's Extinction
NEW BALANCE: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes
NEW YORK: Emergency Management Plan for Disabled Inadequate
NORTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Affirms Medicaid Class Action Ruling
QUICK TRIM: Settles Class Action Over Weight Loss Products

PEREGRINE FIN'L: Trustee Asks Bankr. Court to Halt 8 Class Suits
PEREGRINE FIN'L: Trustee's Objection Prompts Class Action Stay
POWELL COMPANY: Recalls 6,300 Anywhere Lounger Bean Bag Chairs
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Suit v. Brokerage Firm Stayed
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Rothstein Argues Right to Pursue Ally Claims

ROMA FINANCIAL: Enters Into MOU in Lawsuit Over Planned Merger
RURAL KING: Recalls 205 Tons of Deer Corn Due to Health Risk
SEGA CORP: Gamers File Class Action Over Aliens False Advertising
SWISHER HYGIENE: Consolidated Claims Filed in Securities Suit
TROPICAL VALLEY: Recalls Next by Nature Dark Chocolate Bananas

UMG RECORDINGS: Directed to Produce Docs in Royalty Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Old Pickens Doodle Line
VENTRUS BIOSCIENCES: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in New York
VISA INC: Continues to Face Canadian Merchant Litigation
VISA INC: Plaintiffs Want Dismissal of ATM Fee Suit Reversed

VISA INC.: Continues to Await Final Approval of MDL Settlement
WAL-MART: Seeks to Overturn Employees' $187.6-Mil. Class Action
WESTERN HEALTH: 2 Suits Over Privacy Breach to Be Consolidated
WET SEAL: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $7.5 Million
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Wants Class Action Transferred to Federal Court

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwasher
ZULILY INC: Recalls 560 Deezo Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
ZYNGA INC: Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit Due by Month's End
ZYNGA INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Secondary Offering of Class A Stock
ZYNGA INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Initial Public Offering

* Class Actions Continue to Affect Companies, Carlton Survey Shows
* Lawyers Gain More Than Injured Parties in Class Actions
* Mayer Brown Tackles Multi-Defendant Class Action Removal Ruling
* Some Countries in Europe May Adopt Class Action System


                             *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles Texas Tax Shelter Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Bryan Cave LLP and
a unit of American Express Co. have reached a settlement in a
putative class action over their roles in marketing life
insurance-based pension plans that allegedly created an illegal
tax shelter, according to documents filed on May 9 in Texas
federal court.  The law firm and co-defendant American Express Tax
and Business Services Inc. said in a joint status report with the
plaintiffs that a settlement has been reached, and asked U.S.
District Judge Jane J. Boyle for 30 days to finalize the
agreement.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Judge Tosses Life Insurance Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that an Oklahoma federal
judge on May 9 dismissed proposed class action claims from a
lawsuit accusing American National Insurance Co. of violating
state laws on life insurance policies linked to car loans.

Judy Dollison had claimed ANICO and a local car dealership sold
her late husband and others life insurance policies as a means to
pay off auto loans when the customers died, but that they had
breached state law for such policies by taking out insurance worth
more than the debt customers actually owed.


AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls 54,700 Microwave Popcorn Makers
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Avon Products, Inc., of New York; and manufacturer, Okay
Enterprise Co., Ltd., of Kunshan City, Taiwan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 54,700 Microwave Popcorn Makers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

When cooked too long, the popcorn can overheat in this popcorn
maker and ignite, posing a fire or burn hazard to consumers.

Avon has received 20 reports of the popcorn makers overheating,
including two incidents involving fires that resulted in damage to
microwave ovens.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Avon's Microwave Popcorn Maker sold in the
U.S. with item number 474-105 in Avon's brochures and Web site.
The recalled plastic popcorn maker consists of a clear tub and a
yellow vented lid.  The tub is 6 inches high and measures 7.5
inches in diameter and has three feet at the base.  "DO NOT REMOVE
WITH BARE HANDS.  HOLD UNIT WITH GLOVES" is molded into the
plastic of the lid and "USE IN MICROWAVE OVEN ONLY" is molded into
the underside of the bowl.  "Made in Taiwan" is printed on an
adhesive label located on the underside of the bowl.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/b9l3D8

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
independent Avon sales representatives and online at
http://www.avon.com/from October 2012 through February 2013, for
about $13.

Consumers should stop using the popcorn maker immediately and
contact Avon to receive a copy of the updated instructions on how
to safely use the microwave popcorn maker.  The new instructions
can also be obtained from independent Avon representatives and on
Avon's Web site under the Product Recall section.  Avon Products
may be reached at (800) 367-2866 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.avon.com/and click on Product Recall at the bottom of
the page for new instructions and more information.


BANK OF AMERICA: New York May Drop Claims Over Merrill Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that last month, New
York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman withdrew claims for up to
$6 billion in damages against former AIG chief Hank Greenberg.
Now, another big case -- against Bank of America over its
acquisition of Merrill Lynch -- looks headed the same way.

The 2010 case, one of the highest profile lawsuits brought by
Andrew Cuomo when he was New York attorney general, accuses Bank
of America and former top executives Ken Lewis and Joseph Price of
misleading shareholders about Merrill Lynch's losses.

The case appeared to hit trouble on April 5, when a federal judge
approved a $2.43 billion settlement in a shareholder class action
against Bank of America over the Merrill Lynch deal.  Because
shareholders have settled, New York can no longer pursue damages
on their behalf, according to legal experts.

"Once shareholders have made their peace, they can't take a second
bite at the apple through the attorney general," said Jacob
Zamansky, a New York securities lawyer.

As a result, Mr. Schneiderman may either have to withdraw his
claims for damages, severely narrowing the case, or face a legal
fight involving a landmark 2008 decision by New York's highest
court, the experts said.

The decision may have undercut the Martin Act, the powerful New
York state securities statute of 1921 that attorneys general have
wielded like a club against Wall Street since it was revived in
the early 2000s.

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, declined to
comment on the Bank of America case.

William Jeffress, an attorney who represents Price, said the class
action settlement significantly affects the case against his
client.

"It limits the remedies that can be sought," Mr. Jeffress, of the
law firm Baker Botts, said in an interview.  Besides restitution
and damages, the state's lawsuit seeks penalties and other forms
of relief.

A spokesman for Bank of America and a lawyer for Lewis both
declined to comment on the case.

                     Masking Financial Woes

The same scenario was in play in the Greenberg case, brought in
2005 by then-New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer, who accused
him of using sham transactions to mask the company's financial
position.

On April 10, a federal judge approved a $115 million class action
settlement between investors and Greenberg, among others, over the
same allegations.  Just over two weeks later, Mr. Schneiderman
dropped his claim for damages against Greenberg.

Legal experts said Mr. Schneiderman's move stems from a 2008
ruling in a case known as Spitzer v. Applied Card, which barred
the New York attorney general from seeking restitution on behalf
of victims who settled a federal class-action, even if they were
not made whole.

While the Applied Card ruling involved consumers hit by a credit
card fraud scheme, it also affects claims for restitution in
securities fraud cases the New York attorney general brings under
the Martin Act, such as the Greenberg or Bank of America case.  It
creates an incentive for the attorney general's office to settle
cases before investors reach class action settlements over the
same claims, effectively putting the attorney general in a race
against plaintiffs' lawyers.

"If you take too long, you'll essentially be pre-empted by the
class action," said James Park, a professor at Brooklyn Law School
and a former assistant attorney general in New York.

While Mr. Schneiderman did not give the Applied Card decision as a
reason for dropping his damage claims against Greenberg on April
25, his office cited it when it tried, unsuccessfully, to block
the class action settlement from gaining approval.

In a brief, David Ellenhorn, an attorney for Mr. Schneiderman,
said such a settlement would allow Greenberg and his co-defendant,
ex-AIG chief financial officer Howard Smith, "to end-run their
huge exposure" in the New York lawsuit.

                        Auditing Lehman

Meanwhile, the New York attorney general's office may be
anticipating a similar scenario in a case against Ernst & Young
over its auditing of Lehman Brothers before Lehman collapsed in
2008.

Cuomo brought that headline-grabbing case just before he left
office in 2010, accusing the accounting firm of helping Lehman
mislead investors about its financial condition.

In a court appearance last December, Mr. Schneiderman counsel
Ellenhorn sought the ability to go after $150 million in fees that
Ernst & Young earned from Lehman Brothers in the years leading up
to the bank's collapse.  As part of his argument, Mr. Ellenhorn
said that an ongoing shareholder class action could hamper his
ability to go after damages.

Justice Jeffrey Oing, the New York judge presiding over that case,
which has not yet gone to trial, ruled that Mr. Schneiderman could
not seek the fees since they weren't paid by investors or the
state.

The cases are People v Bank of America Corp, New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, No. 450115/2010, People v.
Greenberg and Smith, 401720/2005, and People v. Ernst & Young,
451586/2010.


BLIZZARD: May Face Class Action Over Diablo III RMAH Exploit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Blend reports that what started as a simple patch update
for Diablo III has turned into another massive fail involving the
Real-Money Auction House.

There were two things that peeved off a lot of gamers involving
Blizzard's Diablo III launch last year 1) The always-on DRM that
forced people to stay online in order to play the single-player.
2) The Real-Money Auction House, which is basically an unregulated
gambling den that, surprise-surprise, operates on real money.

Neither of the two peeves have been resolved and most Diablo
players have learned to live with them.  However, just about all
the big issues with the game either stem from or revolve around
the always-on DRM or the RMAH, and in this case, the RMAH is at
the center of attention after an exploit allowed users to generate
infinite gold and make REAL money off of the counterfeit money by
selling it at under-the-market value on the RMAH.

Just for reference, if someone sold gold for the maximum allowed
RMAH value to just four people, they would net $1,000 selling
digitally counterfeit money.  Diablo III sold 12 million copies,
so as you can imagine, counterfeiters could have made a nice chunk
of cash from this exploit.

Blizzard effectively shutdown both the Gold Auction House and the
Real-Money Auction House, as noted in an official blog post on the
forums . . .

"We are still in the process of reviewing all of Tuesday's
transactions and need to keep the Auction House offline for a
while longer to complete our audit.  At this time, we will not be
able to bring the Auction House online by 10:00 a.m. PDT.  We're
re-evaluating required downtime, and will provide another update
by 12:00 p.m. PDT."

For now, both auction houses are offline indefinitely, until
Blizzard can filter and sift out each and every exploited
transaction that occurred this past Tuesday on May 7th.  The
problem comes in with the finer details, though: how do you handle
exploited transactions that involve someone's real money from the
RMAH? If someone bought a gazillion in-game gold with $300 real
USD, you can't just make that void, roll the purchase back or take
the items away.  That's someone's real money.

As noted on Blues News, those threatening a class-action lawsuit
are just one of many fringe groups Blizzard is dealing with,
including those petitioning for a roll-back (which would most
certainly work against the better interest of RMAH users), some
claiming to ban all those who participated in the exploit or
transactions involving the exploit, others are simply asking for
no more auction houses at all, and a few are telling everyone to
stop asking for petitions and lawsuits.  There is also one or two
insurgent threads going on about an offline mode.

No matter how it resolves itself, will never end with Diablo III
and the RMAH.  Dealing with a real-money market with no oversight
save for that provided by Blizzard means that they can do with
your money whatever they want.  However it plays out, gamers are
the real losers whenever it comes to Diablo III and the RMAH.

                   Auction Houses Remain Offline

Ural Garrett, writing for Gamenguide, reports that Diablo 3's
auction houses still remain offline since Blizzard shut it down on
May 8 following a patch that triggered an exploit allowing users
to disrupt the game's economy.

Though the bug has been fixed, the shutdown of both gold and Real-
Money Auction Houses are still frustrating enough players to the
threat of a class-action lawsuit as Blizzard tries to audit every
transaction that occurred since May 7.

Reddit user Tyropro explained the science behind the now infamous
"gold dupe" that has been another blow to Blizzard.  Here's the
user's explanation below:

The gold "dupe" involved creating a RMAH auction for billions of
gold while staying under the $250 limit.  The example I saw in a
video was 6 billion gold (600 x 10,000,000 at $0.39 per stack, for
$234).  When they posted this auction only ~1.7 billion appeared
to be for sale, with the rest "missing" until they sent it to
their stash and ended up with more than they started with.  The
exact numbers from a duping video:

    Create RMAH auction for:            6,000,000,000 gold

    Auction shows up as:                1,705,032,704 gold

    This much is missing!               4,294,967,296 gold

    The missing amount, divided by 2:   2,147,483,648 gold

2,147,483,648 (or 231) is the maximum value you can store in an
int32 in programming.

Simply put, their RMAH gold selling code wasn't written to handle
numbers over 2,147,483,648 properly, and the result was duplicate
gold being added to people's stashes.

A potential lawsuit can come if Blizzard can't rectify
transactions that involve purchases in the RMAH.  Those who have
already exploited the bug could already have cashed out funds; a
real problem for the developer. Some are even asking Blizzard to
roll-back everything, ban those who participated in the exploit or
flat out shut down the auction houses down for good.

Blues News contributor Verno said that though Blizzard may be in a
catch 22, the best option may be a roll-back.

The trouble with that is that just punishes a few people while
leaving permanent, lasting damage to the games economy that
affects everyone else.  Those people who had their accounts
suspended still used that money, bought items, spread it around,
etc.  Imagine quadrillions of gold, even if they managed to
reverse half of that it would still permanently inflate and screw
the economy.  The only way to put the genie back in the bottle is
a rollback, who was responsible and how they are punished is a
secondary consideration for people playing.

Diablo 3 has suffered from mounds of criticism since its launch
last year including Blizzard's much criticized always-on DRM that
forced players online for single-player along with the general
idea of the RMAH.


BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Class Cert. Denial in Workers' Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In FAULKINBURY v. BOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC., Josie Faulkinbury and
William Levene, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, appealed from the order denying their motion for class
certification. They sought to represent and certify a class of
about 4,000 current and former employees of Boyd & Associates,
Inc., which provides security guard services throughout Southern
California.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members work or worked for
Boyd as security guards. They asserted that Boyd denied off-duty
meal breaks and off-duty rest breaks, and failed to include
certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating
the hourly rate of overtime pay. The Plaintiffs proposed three
subclasses -- the Meal Break Class, the Rest Break Class, and the
Overtime Class.

The Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District
previously issued an opinion affirming the order denying
certification of the Meal Break Class and the Rest Break Class,
and reversing the order denying certification of the Overtime
Class (Faulkinbury I).  The Fourth Circuit issued its opinion
before the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Brinker
Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.

According to Justice Richard D. Fybel of the 4th District Court
of Appeal, the California Supreme Court granted review of
Faulkinbury I, decided Brinker, and then transferred this case
"with directions to vacate [our] decision and to reconsider the
cause in light of Brinker[, supra,] 53 Cal.4th 1004."

"Following transfer, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on
the effect of Brinker on this case, and we again entertained oral
argument," Justice Fybel said.

"As the Supreme Court directed, we have reconsidered the cause in
light of Brinker, reexamined the record, and analyzed the issues
anew," he continued.  "We now conclude, in light of Brinker, that
the trial court erred by denying class certification of all three
subclasses and therefore reverse and remand with directions to
certify all three subclasses."

Justice Fybel ruled that the order denying class certification is
reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to grant the
motion for class certification and to certify the Meal Break
Class, the Rest Break Class, and the Overtime Class.  Appellants
will recover costs incurred on appeal.

Acting Presiding Justice William F. Rylaarsdam and Justice Eileen
C. Moore concurred.

The case is SIE FAULKINBURY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
BOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. G041702.

Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq., Christina A. Humphrey, Esq., Craig
Pynes, Esq. of Marlin & Saltzman LLP; Renee L. Barge, Esq. --
rbarge@class-action-attorneys.com -- of Class Action Litigation
Group; Lawrence A. Witsoe, Esq. of the Law Office of Lawrence A.
Witsoe; and Leslie Roseman, Esq. of The Law Offices of White &
Roseman represent the Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Jonathan Fraser Light, Esq. -- jlight@lightgablerlaw.com -- and
Angela V. Lopez, Esq. -- alopez@lightgablerlaw.com -- of
LightGabler LLP represent the Defendant and Respondent.

A copy of the Appeals Court's May 10, 2013 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/osb7OLfrom Leagle.com.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Regulators Join Fight Against Class Action Waiver
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Brenzel, writing for Law360, reports that state regulators
and investor organizations on May 8 joined the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority in its appeal against a FINRA panel decision
to allow Charles Schwab Corp. to prevent clients from filing class
actions.  The regulators and investor organizations argued in a
series of briefs that the panel exceeded its authority and greatly
endangered the ability of clients to file claims.


CHARLES SCHWAB: NASAA Supports Fight Against Class Action Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advisor.ca reports that the North American Securities
Administrators Association has filed an amicus brief supporting
FINRA's efforts to overturn a decision by a FINRA hearing panel
that allowed Charles Schwab & Company to prevent its customers
from participating in class-action lawsuits.

"Charles Schwab's attempt to unilaterally alter its account
agreements to include the class action waiver is an obvious
attempt by the firm to insulate itself from liability to its own
clients," says Heath Abshure, NASAA president and Arkansas
Securities Commissioner.  "This ruling would essentially allow
broker-dealers to prohibit participation in class actions against
them by their customers.  That's wrong on the merits and bad
public policy."

NASAA's amicus brief was filed with FINRA's National Adjudicatory
Council, the national committee that reviews initial decisions
rendered in FINRA disciplinary and membership proceedings.

The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association has also filed a
related amicus.  A similar brief was filed jointly on May 10 by
AARP, the National Consumer Law Center and Public Justice
supporting FINRA's efforts to overturn the hearing panel's
decision.

NASAA argued that the FINRA hearing panel erred by refusing to
enforce FINRA rules prohibiting the use of class action waivers in
customer agreements.

"In doing so, the hearing panel ignored FINRA's statutorily duty
to enforce the organization's rules, relied on an erroneous
application of the Federal Arbitration Act, and placed investors
in imminent harm by precluding their ability to seek redress for
small dollar claims," NASAA's brief says.

"Our interest in this case stems from our strong belief that
investors should be free to join with other investors through the
representative class action process to resolve claims that are too
costly to bring independently," Mr. Abshure says.  "The hearing
panel's decision deprives investors of this choice through an
erroneous application of the Federal Arbitration Act and should
therefore be reversed."

Separately, on May 3, 2013, NASAA wrote to SEC Chair Mary Jo White
urging her to use the authority granted to the agency in Section
921 of the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit or impose limits on the use
of mandatory arbitration clauses in broker-dealer and investment
adviser customer contracts.  In the letter, Mr. Abshure wrote that
"it is essential" for the SEC to act given the recent decision by
Schwab to expand its forced arbitration contracts to require that
investors waive their right to participate in class actions.


CODA HOLDINGS: Recalls Sedan to Repair Side-Curtain Air Bags
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that bankrupt Coda Holdings Inc. sold the Coda Sedan, an
electrically powered version of the Hafei Saibao, made in China.
A crash test in March by the National Highway & Transportation
Safety Authority revealed that a side-curtain air bag wasn't
deploying properly. Because Coda was able to sell only 100 copies
of its electric auto, a recall will cost $40,000.

The company filed papers in bankruptcy court for authority to
conduct a voluntary recall.  There is a hearing on May 29 for
approval.

Coda says replacing the improperly manufactured parts is in the
ordinary course of business.

                        About CODA Holdings

Los Angeles, California-based CODA Energy --
http://www.codaenergy.com-- made an electric auto that was a
commercial failure.  The company marketed the Coda Sedan, which
sold only 100 copies.  It was an electrically powered version of
the Hafei Saibao, made in China.  After bankruptcy, Los Angeles-
based Coda intends to concentrate on making stationery electric-
storage systems.

CODA Holdings, Inc., Coda Energy LLC and three other affiliates
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.
13-11153) on May 1, 2013, to enable the Company to complete a
sale, confirm a plan, and emerge from bankruptcy in a stronger
position to execute its new business plan.  The Company expects
the sale process to take 45 days to complete.

FCO MA CODA Holdings LLC, an affiliate of Fortress Investment
Group, is leading a consortium of lenders intending to provide DIP
financing to enable the Company's energy storage business to
remain fully operational during the restructuring process.  The
consortium, or its designee, will also as stalking horse bidder to
acquire the Company post-bankruptcy.  In addition, the Company
will seek to monetize value of its existing automotive business
assets.

CODA disclosed assets of $10 million to $50 million and
liabilities of less than $100 million.  The Debtors have incurred
prepetition a significant amount of secured indebtedness: secured
notes of with principal in the amount of $59.1 million; term loans
in the principal amount of $12.6 million; and a bridge loan with
$665,000 outstanding.  FCO and other bridge loan lenders have
"enhanced priority" over other secured noteholders that did not
participate in the bridge loans, pursuant to the intercreditor
agreement.

CODA's legal advisor in connection with the restructuring is White
& Case LLP.  Emerald Capital Advisors serves as its Chief
Restructuring Officer and restructuring advisor, and Houlihan
Lokey serves as its investment banker for the restructuring.
Sidley Austin LLP is serving as FCO MA CODA Holdings LLC's legal
advisor.


COMCAST CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $7 Modem Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
Karl Bode, writing for DSLReports.com, reports that a federal
judge refused to grant class action status to a Comcast customer
complaining that Comcast failed to inform him about the fact the
company charges a $7 modem rental fee (unless users buy a modem).
Most of the complaints about the fee were dismissed back in
January, the Judge insisting that the plaintiff wasn't specific
enough about which markets saw misleading Comcast marketing in
relation to the fee.  Despite an amended complaint with more
detail, the Judge still found the complaints not specific enough
for a class action suit:

The [first amended complaint] fails to specify when or where
Comcast advertisements were viewed, the content of those
advertisements, or which of them in particular plaintiff relied
upon," Armstrong wrote.  Diacakis added more details about his
personal contacts with Comcast representatives in the second
amended complaint, but Judge Armstrong said this version still
failed to add additional facts about Comcast's marketing
practices.

Comcast has been on a winning streak when it comes to consumer
issues and allegations of anti-consumer behavior.  The company
also saw fortune smile their direction when the Supreme Court
ruled 5-4 in Comcast's favor after locals alleged the company
violates antitrust rules by running a predatory monopoly in
Philadelphia and Boston.  The conservative majority in that case
similarly claimed consumers weren't specific enough in their
claims of wrong-doing for class action status.


COMCAST CORP: Certification of "Philadelphia Cluster" Case Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a judgment certifying a
lawsuit alleging antitrust law violations against Comcast
Corporation.

Comcast Corporation faces two purported class actions originally
filed in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for
the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is the
Company's customer base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the
potential class in the Pennsylvania case is the Company's customer
base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms
are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege
that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable
providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in
those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including
treble damages.

The company said in its 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March
31, 2013 that: "Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia
Cluster customers were certified in October 2007 and January 2010,
respectively. We appealed the class certification in the
Philadelphia Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the class certification in August 2011 and denied
our petition for a rehearing en banc in September 2011. In March
2010, we moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the
plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster. In April 2012, the
District Court issued a decision dismissing some of the
plaintiffs' claims, but allowing two claims to proceed to trial.
The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are
stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims."

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Comcast's petition to
review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and in September
2012, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending resolution of
the Supreme Court appeal. In March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled
that the class had been improperly certified and reversed the
judgment of the Third Circuit.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Antitrust MDL in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation faces 22 purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the country. All of these
actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.

The company said in its 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March
31, 2013 that: "In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009
on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the
plaintiffs allege that we improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.

"The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek
relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable
customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable
customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and
Washington. In January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.

"In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses
in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico and West Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs
omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law
claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania
subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended
complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive
trade practices acts in California and Washington.

"The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our
premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of
premium cable customers from California and Washington. In July
2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs'
claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration.

"The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that we improperly
"tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital
cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and
the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney
General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution.

"We removed the case to the United States District Court for West
Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated with the multidistrict litigation described above. In
March 2010, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to West Virginia
state court. In June 2010, the Attorney General moved to sever and
remand the portion of the claims seeking civil penalties and
injunctive relief back to West Virginia state court. We filed a
brief in opposition to the motion in July 2010."


COMPTON UNIFIED: Accused of Discriminating Latinos and Hispanics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raquel Espinoza, an individual; Victor Lopez, an individual; Jose
Alvarado, as Guardian ad Litem for Minor J.A.; Catarino Garcia,
aka Rufino Garcia, an individual; Maria Delgado, aka Maria
Calleros, an individual; and all persons similarly situated; and
Does 1 - 10, inclusive v. Compton Unified School District Police
Department; Compton Unified School District; Compton Unified
School District Board of Trustees; City of Compton; Police Chief
Hourie Taylor Sued in his official capacity (hereinafter "O/C");
Offcr Porch #30126-O/C; Offcr Guillet #30194-O/C;], Offcr Keith
Donahue #30106-O/C; Offcr Timothy Wilson-O/C; Offcr L. Watkins-
O/C; Offcr M. Venegas #30183-O/C; Offcr Salvador Villa #30188-O/C;
Offcr J. Sanchez-O/C; Offcr A. Miller #30135-O/C; Offcr Reyes-O/C;
Offcr T. Wilson-O/C; Offcr Kenneth R. Bonner #32139-O/C; Offcr E.
Robinson #30107-O/C; Offcr R. Garcia-O/C; Offcr Lucas #30165-O/C;
Offcr L. Gray #31149-O/C; Offcr J. Ford #30182-O/C; CSA Timothy
Pernell Bowdry-O/C; CSA Larry Ventress-O/C; CSA Lamar Grady
Walker-O/C; CSA Blunt-O/C; L. Henry-O/C; Principal Letitia
Bradley-O/C; Asst Principal Laura Henry-O/C; President Micah Ali-
O/C; Vice President Margie Garrett-O/C; Clerk Satra Zurita-O/C;
Leg Rep Skyy Fisher-O/C; Member Emma Sharif-O/C; Member Marjorie
Shipp-O/C; Member Mae Thomas-O/C; Superintendent Darin Bradwley-
O/C; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-03519 (C.D. Cal.,
May 16, 2013), is an action for injunctive relief and to recover
damages to vindicate the civil rights of persons of Hispanic and
Latino origin and descent, who were subjected to unlawful arrest,
excessive force, racial profiling and racial discrimination by
Compton School Police Officers, the Compton Unified School
District personnel and its board of trustees, and the City of
Compton, all of which either actively participated in illegal,
discriminatory conduct, or condone the conduct.

Latino and Hispanic schoolchildren and their parents were singled
out for arrest by police officers acting in concert with school
security guards, school board members, school district personnel,
and in at least one instance, a City of Compton Code enforcement
officer, the Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that the School
Police physically assaulted several of these persons for no reason
at all other than the color of their skin, their race and voicing
their concern against police and school abuses.  The Plaintiffs
add that several of them and others similarly situated were
racially profiled and, then, illegally deported, without due
process.

Raquel Espinoza is a woman of Hispanic origin and descent, and is
a school activist, regularly exercising her First Amendment rights
in protest to the conduct of the Defendants.  Victor Lopez was a
former student at Compton High School, and was regularly
exercising his First Amendment rights in filming the
discriminatory and illegal conduct of the School Police and the
Compton Officers.  Jose Alvarado is a resident of Compton,
California, and the Guardian ad Litem for J.A., a minor and
student at Compton High School.  Catarino Garcia is a male of
Hispanic/Latino origin and descent, and a resident of Compton,
California.  Maria Delgado is a female of Hispanic/Latino origin
and descent, and a resident of Compton, California.

Compton Unified School District Police Department -- the School
Police -- is an organization of unknown origin, funded and
operated by and through the direction of Defendants Compton
Unified School District and the Compton Unified School District
Board of Trustees.  CUSD is a school district, duly organized by
and through the City of Compton, and operating within the
territorial boundaries of the City of Compton, California.  The
School Board is an entity of unknown origin, duly operated by and
at the direction of the CUSD in the City of Compton, California.
The City of Compton is a municipality, operating within the
territorial boundaries of the City of Compton, California.  The
Police Officers and Doe Defendants are all sued collectively in
their official capacity as police officers, security officers and
representatives of the School Police, who are operating under the
control and direction of the School Police.  The other individual
defendants are sued as representatives of the CUSD and the School
Board.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martin J. Kaufman, Esq.
          Eric Christopher Morris, Esq.
          THE KAUFMAN LAW FIRM
          2300 Westwood Boulevard, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (213) 239-9400
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9409
          E-mail: mjk@lklaw.net



DONA ANA: Nursing Students File Class Action Over Accreditation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Alba Soular and James Staley, writing for Las Cruces Sun-
News, report that eight former and current Dona Ana Community
College nursing students filed a class-action lawsuit on May 10
against the school and its parent institution, New Mexico State
University.

The filing came the same day as diplomas were handed to some
former DACC nursing students -- the first among the roughly 100
students to graduate since their college careers were suddenly
interrupted last fall.

The students filing the lawsuit alleged officials were at fault
for failing last year to maintain national accreditation for
DACC's nursing program.  They argued that they were harmed
financially as a result.

The students alleged that the school ignored warnings issued by
the Georgia-based National League for Nursing Accrediting
Commission about inadequate ratios of master's degree-level
instructors, according to the complaint.  The cautions began as
early as 2002, according to the document.

"DACC repeatedly hired faculty without masters degrees despite
opportunities to hire qualified persons with masters degrees for
these same positions," the complaint states.

Also, the school retained Nursing Director Tracy Lopez as head of
the program after the NLNAC official cited concerns about her
having just two years' of teaching experience, according to the
lawsuit.  In addition, the school failed to notify its students
when it was placed on a warning status by the NLNAC in 2010 and
then retroactively tried to say it had issued plenty of notice,
the lawsuit claims.

DACC spokeswoman Jaylene McIntosh said on May 10 that the
university and college hadn't been served a copy of the lawsuit.

"We're not able to comment," she said.

Typically, public entities have a certain amount of time after
receiving a lawsuit to file their formal response in court.

The lawsuit was registered in District Court in Las Cruces by Las
Cruces attorneys Joleen Youngers and Larry Pickett and Albuquerque
attorney Rob Treinen.

Ms. Youngers said on May 10 that the lawsuit was filed on behalf
of all the former DACC nursing students.  But a judge would have
to certify the class in order to formally join the hundred
students who were attending the school when the accreditation was
denied, she said.

If that certification happens, it will be up to students to opt
out of the lawsuit, Ms. Youngers said.  Asked whether the filing
was somehow timed to coincide with graduation ceremonies, Ms.
Youngers said that it wasn't.

"It's just that we managed to get it all done around that time,"
she said.  "It wasn't intended to be at all."

Two DACC nursing students who were part of a wave of students to
transfer to NMSU's sister nursing program last fall were slated to
graduate on May 11.  A few former DACC students who transferred to
Western New Mexico University, too, were expected to graduate on
May 10.

Reached by phone on May 10, Linda Sherrill, mother of a former
DACC student who is part of the lawsuit, declined to say much and
instead referred questions to the group's attorneys.  She said
students involved in the lawsuit also were unlikely comment.

Former DACC nursing student Brittany Barham, who's not part of the
lawsuit, said she hadn't seen it yet and so couldn't comment about
it.  Ms. Barham did participate in a "pinning" ceremony on May 10,
in which she took the nurses oath.  She's graduating on May 11
with her bachelor's degree in nursing from NMSU after transferring
into its program last fall.  She's hoping to find work locally in
intensive care, she said.

Ms. Barham and other graduates still must pass a national
licensing exam before they can start work.

                          Looking Back

News broke in August of last year, just as the semester got under
way, that the DACC nursing program had been denied a national
accreditation renewal.

The denial didn't stop the school from operating.  However, it
meant that any graduates would have curtailed job options,
especially in Las Cruces hospitals, where nationally accredited
degrees are required.

In April, the New Mexico nursing board -- a separate entity from
the NLNAC -- issued a three-year approval for DACC's nursing
program.  The approval is essentially what allows the college to
host a nursing program, but is different from the national
accreditation, which the college hasn't yet regained.  State
nursing board officials said the program had improved over the
past year.

According to the complaint, students signed onto the lawsuit are:

* Amy Avalos of Las Cruces, a fourth- and final semester DACC
nursing student at the time of the lost accreditation. Avalos was
among a handful former DACC nursing students who were accepted
into WNMU this spring and was expected to graduate on May 10.

* Chelsie Carter of Las Cruces, a former fourth-semester DACC
student.

* Shelby Hughes of Las Cruces, a former fourth-semester DACC
student.

* Marcella Madrid of Mesilla Park, a third-semester student at
the time of the accreditation loss.

* Margarita Mendez, a third-semester student at the time of the
lost accreditation.

* Francine Sims of Vado, a second-semester student at the time of
the loss.

* Jean Smith of Las Cruces, a second-semester student at the time
of the loss.

* Angela Cavender of Las Cruces, a second-semester student at the
time of the loss.


ELSIE MASON: Court Allows Class Action Over Bedbugs to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Pitt, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
hundreds of residents from two Des Moines apartment buildings may
move forward with a class-action lawsuit over a bedbug infestation
in what may be one of the nation's first class-action cases
against apartment owners and managers regarding damages from
bedbugs.

The Iowa Supreme Court said on May 10 it was deadlocked, which
means Polk County Judge Joel Novak's 2011 ruling certifying class-
action status stands because of an Iowa law that says when the
Supreme Court is equally divided in opinion, the judgment of a
lower court stands affirmed.

Siding with Judge Novak were Justices David Wiggins, Daryl Hecht,
and Bruce Zager.  Justices Mark Cady, Thomas Waterman, and Edward
Mansfield voted to reverse it.  Justice Brent Appel did not
participate in the decision.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Iowa's consumer protection law
and says the apartment managers assured tenants that the
apartments were habitable despite knowing of the bedbug problem.
Court documents indicate the residents say their apartments have
had bedbugs for years and they have been bitten, scarred and
deprived of sleep.

Jeffrey Lipman, an attorney representing many of the elderly
tenants in the two apartment buildings, said the number of
residents to be included in the class-action suit will likely
exceed 300.

"We are very happy for the tenants," he said.  The court's order
means each person will not be forced to go to trial with their own
attorney and expert witnesses.

During oral arguments, the attorneys and the justices said they
could find no other cases in the United States in which a bedbug
case was certified as a class-action lawsuit against apartment
building owners or managers.  Attorney Kevin Driscoll, who argued
before the Iowa Supreme Court for Minnesota-based building manager
American Baptist Homes of the Midwest in February, said allowing
the case to move forward would open "the proverbial floodgates"
for such lawsuits.

In 2010, residents of Elsie Mason Manor and Liguitti Tower sued
building owner Johnston-based First Baptist Housing Foundation,
and American Baptist Homes of the Midwest.  The building's owners
and managers wanted the court to throw out class-action
certification, saying not all of the residents could prove that
they had bedbugs in their apartments.

"One tenant's experience with bedbugs is not representative of the
remaining class so that's where we think the analysis breaks down
and the ruling (by Novak) was an abuse of discretion to permit
this generalized evidence," Mr. Driscoll said in February.

The attorney for First Baptist Housing, Tom Joensen, said on
May 10 he couldn't comment on the details of an ongoing case.

"We thank the Iowa Supreme Court.  It's done its job again to
provide us with the law of the case and because of the ruling the
litigation moves forward on the merits and unfortunately we can't
comment on that as much as we want to," he said.

The lawsuit now goes back to Polk County District Court for trial.


EXPERIAN PLC: Lawyers Leave Behind Clients in Settlement Conflicts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that an escalating
battle among lawyers who sued over incorrect credit-agency reports
has left behind a rather important constituency: The clients.

After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a proposed $45
million class-action settlement with Experian and two other credit
agencies because of clear conflicts between lawyers and the
consumers they were supposedly represented, those lawyers plan to
push ahead with the settlement even if that means ditching some of
the very clients who brought them into the case.

The Experian case is "is a nice poster child for what's wrong with
class actions," said George Carpinello -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
-- a lawyer with Boies Schiller & Flexner who represents claimants
who want the attorneys who were criticized in the Ninth Circuit
decision removed from the lawsuit.

As is typical in consumer class actions, a scrum of law firms
piled onto Experian, Transunion and Equifax in 2005 after
bankruptcy lawyers noticed a pattern of clients whose credit
reports contained entries of unpaid debts that should have been
discharged in bankruptcy.

The theory of damages was tenuous -- how could an incorrect unpaid
debt entry make things worse for a consumer who already has a
bankruptcy filing in his credit report? -- but state and federal
law theoretically allow for fines of $100 to $1,000 per violation.
Potential damages, by some estimates, exceeded $4 billion.

Charles Juntikka, one of New York's leading consumer bankruptcy
lawyers, and Daniel Wolf of Washington recruited five of
Mr. Juntikka's former bankruptcy clients to serve as
representative plaintiffs in a class action against the credit
agencies.  Since Mr. Juntikka had no experience with class
actions, he in turn recruited San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser,
which has made its mark in everything from consumer class actions
to the $200 billion multistate tobacco settlement in 1998.

Armed with five plaintiffs who complained of incorrect entries on
their credit reports, Lieff Cabraser filed a class action.  After
a bit of the inter-lawyer squabbling that typically ensues in such
cases, Lieff Cabraser emerged as the lead law firm in the case
along with Houston attorney Michael Caddell, a mass-tort
specialist whose clients have included families of children killed
in Branch Davidian standoff with federal agents in 1993. (He
lost.)

According to Messrs. Juntikka and Carpinello, the so-called White
plaintiffs Mr. Juntikka brought into the case each had client
agreements with Lieff Cabraser that specified the firm would
represent them. (Lieff Cabraser referred questions to Mr. Caddell,
who disputed the meaning of those contracts.)  As the case
proceeded, Lieff Cabraser joined forces with Mr. Caddell and
another law firm to try and negotiate a settlement with Experian,
signing their own agreement to share the case.

There's a big conflict lurking at the center of every class
action, because the lawyers who are supposedly negotiating on
behalf of the class also want to make as much of a profit as
possible.  That means negotiating a settlement quickly, and with a
meaningful fee, even if the agreement leaves little for individual
plaintiffs.

In a traditional settlement with active plaintiffs who hired their
own lawyers, courts tend not to question any agreement that ends
the litigation.

"That's not happening in a class action," Mr. Carpinello said,
however. "It's a Dutch auction.  The plaintiff lawyers want to
reach a settlement with the least amount of work."

Judges have a conflict, too.  They are busy, and don't like to see
their courts clogged with civil cases against well-heeled
corporate defendants that can use vigorous motion practice to
delay their opponents and run up the costs.  The federal judge in
this case, David O. Carter, made it clear he didn't think much of
the plaintiffs' case and he wanted the two sides to work out a
settlement as quickly as possible.  The credit agencies agreed to
a partial settlement in 2008 under which they'd revamp their
reporting procedures, and pay the lawyers $6 million in fees.

As Messrs. Juntikka and Wolf pressed for money too, Judge Carter
expressed growing frustration with the case.  In hearings in 2009
and 2010 he cajoled each side, at one point reminding lawyers for
the credit agencies how risky it would be to take the case to
trial.  Orange County "has the reputation of being rather
conservative," he said, "but, you know, we have practitioners who
have brought incredible verdicts."

"We have the Toyota case upstairs," the judge continued.  "So you
don't know.  You don't know."

At the same time, he issued an unusual "tentative ruling" in
January 2009 in which he would deny certification of a class of
millions of consumers because not all of them had inaccurate
entries on their credit reports and some were actually helped by
reports that had incorrect coding on how debts were discharged.

Carter's ruling spurred Mr. Caddell and Lieff Cabraser to work out
a settlement and a month later they had a deal: The three agencies
would pay $45 million, with lawyers keeping $10 million of that as
additional fees.  Messrs. Wolf and Juntikka disagreed vociferously
and urged the White clients, who serve as representatives of the
entire class, to reject it as inadequate.  By their calculations,
the 775,000 or so class members who submitted claims would get $26
apiece. (Mr. Caddell says a much smaller group of plaintiffs who
submitted evidence they were denied jobs or credit because of
incorrect entries could get $750 apiece.)

That's when the pressure began.  In meetings with the White
plaintiffs, Mr. Caddell and other lawyers urged them to change
their minds or risk losing a $5,000 "incentive fee" that courts
often distribute to class representatives to compensate them for
the risk and time they put into the litigation.  When those
efforts appeared to fail, the lawyers inserted a clause into the
settlement that denied payments to class reps who objected to the
deal.

It was that clause that led the Ninth Circuit to throw out the
settlement, saying it drove an impermissible wedge between the
lead plaintiffs and the class they were supposed to represent. One
of the main roles of class representatives is to make sure their
fellow "clients" aren't being taken advantage of by their own
lawyers.

Under the agreement, if the class representatives had concerns
about the settlement's fairness, they could either remain silent
and accept the $5,000 awards or object to the settlement and risk
getting as little as $26 if the district court approved the
settlement over their objections.


FORD MOTOR: Wolfe Discusses Notable Aspects in Acceleration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Wolfe Law Firm, several aggrieved customers filed a
class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company in federal court,
the Southern District of West Virginia.  They claimed that the
Ford vehicles that they purchased, in the years between 2002 and
2010, had problems with sudden acceleration, with no means of
overriding to prevent crashes.

The customers, represented by West Virginia vehicle accident
attorneys and attorneys in other states, argue that the Mustang,
Explorer, and Mercury Cougar lacked a braking system to override
the electronic throttle control system.  Ford began installing
such a system from 2010 onward.

The customers claim that between 2002 and 2010, Ford could have,
and should have, taken action to prevent accidents that were
foreseeable.  Furthermore, Ford allegedly engaged in unfair and
deceptive business practices, in that it deceived reasonable
customers into believing that Ford vehicles were safe and
reliable.  The customers relied upon Ford's representations, and
as a result, suffered damage.  They seek both compensatory and
punitive damages.

There are two notable aspects of this case: not only is it a class
action lawsuit, but it is also a federal lawsuit.  In order for
this lawsuit to proceed in court, it had to meet certain
requirements.

As a class action, the lawsuit must have numerous injured parties
(usually 40 or more); the injury must be sufficiently common to
all of the parties; the "class representative" must adequately
protect the interests of the class; and there are no conflicts of
interest between class members.  As a lawsuit qualifying for
federal court, the issue must involve either a federal question
(such as a violation of federal law or a treaty), or it must have
(1) diversity (no plaintiff occupies the same state as the
defendant) and (2) an amount in controversy above $75,000.  It
appears that this case is in federal court for the second reason.

In some ways, it is almost surprising that this case could even be
litigated.  Many large companies have become savvy at inserting
arbitration clauses into consumer contracts, which state that if
the consumer has a problem, the consumer waives the right to
litigation and agrees to have the matter heard at an arbitration
proceeding in the company's chosen forum.

Most arbitrators are chosen supposedly for their "expertise" in
the field, but they are not former judges or even lawyers, so they
may not have much knowledge of the law.  Moreover, the desire for
business might make the arbitrator subconsciously biased toward
the company.  Yet arbitration awards, once handed down, are
difficult to appeal in court.

Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has been very
insistent that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) preempts
any state laws governing contract arbitration clauses.  If that is
the case, what can be done to give the consumer, usually at such a
great disadvantage, any relief?

One small exception carved out of the FAA is when an agreement is
found to be the product of unconscionability (unequal parties or
"surprise"), duress, or undue influence.  So many courts will void
an arbitration clause in situations deemed to be unconscionable.

The Wolfe Law Firm is an Elkins personal injury firm founded by
Dorwin Wolfe.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Action Over SSRI Birth Defects Set to Begin
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a Canadian class-action case filed against pharmaceutical giant
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on behalf of women whose babies were born
with SSRI birth defects is set to begin against a rising tide of
concern about the use of antidepressants by pregnant women.

The lead plaintiff in the class is a Faith Gibson of Surrey,
British Columbia, whose daughter Meah Bartram, now 7 years old,
was born with a hole in her heart.  The baby's heart problems were
resolved.  However, Meah is a child constantly at risk for
infection and requires increased medical vigilance.

Ms. Gibson is among the growing number of women who claim Paxil,
one of a group of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors known as
SSRIs, caused complications for their babies.  SSRIs are sold
under a number of product names including Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft
and Lexapro.

According to the research, these drugs are mainly prescribed to
women to treat depression.  Since approximately 50 percent of all
pregnancies are unplanned, many women are already using the drug,
as was Faith Gibson's case, when they become pregnant.

Ms. Gibson's doctor had prescribed Paxil, otherwise known as
paroxetine, for anxiety.  She continued taking the drug during her
pregnancy because she was told it would have no negative
consequences on her baby.

GSK has filed an almost routine notice appealing the certification
of the case in British Columbia; however, Ms. Gibson's lawyer,
David Rosenberg, from Rosenberg and Rosenberg in Vancouver, fully
expects the case to go forward.

Mr. Rosenberg acknowledges the impact the case could have on the
future of SSRIs for pregnant women in Canada and elsewhere.  "Yes,
the first issue is whether Paxil is appropriate for its intended
purpose and there are questions about whether the true risk was
reported.

"The allegations that we are making is that they (GSK) had animal
studies in the early 70's that showed the exact kind of birth
defect that we are concerned about was showing up in rats," says
Mr. Rosenberg, "yet the early warnings and the monographs that
they published said that there was no indication that there was
any concern."

A data brief published by the US Department of Health and Human
Services, and cited in a Journal of Human Reproduction article in
the fall of 2012, reports that there has been a 400 percent
increase in the use of antidepressants in the US.  An estimated 11
percent of all women take an antidepressant.  In 2008, a
Scientific American article reported that 13.4 percent of all
pregnant women in the US take an antidepressant during pregnancy.

"The majority of women are prescribed SSRIs for mild to moderate
depression," says University of British Columbia researcher and
pharmacologist, Dr. Barbara Mintzes, who is concerned about the
rising number of prescriptions written for drugs like Paxil for
women during pregnancy.

"Especially in Canada, doctors are told untreated depression is
more harmful than any risk associated with SSRIs, and if there are
any harmful effects, the benefits of the drug exceed the risk,"
says Dr. Mintzes.  "We went looking for the benefits of SSRIs for
pregnant women, but all we could find was evidence of harm."

Dr. Mintzes is referring to an evolving body of scientific
evidence that shows SSRIs are connected to congenital heart
defects, life-threatening pulmonary hypertension in newborns,
miscarriages, autism and other birth defects.

"Motherisk, an internationally known organization associated with
the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children and a proponent of the
benefits of SSRIs for pregnant women, declined to comment to
LawyersandSettlements.

Although the Canadian health care system covers many medical
costs, Mr. Rosenberg says Faith Gibson and her family had many
additional costs that were not covered.  He will be seeking to
recover those costs and seek punitive damages for the family.

A notice plan, or an outline of how and when other potential class
members will be notified of the upcoming class action, is
currently pending in British Columbia.


GOOGLE INC: Judges Think Book Scanning Case Should Be Broken Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Stangel, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal, reports
that a $3 billion class action lawsuit over Google's book scanning
project made progress, with a group of federal judges indicating
they think the case should be broken up into individual lawsuits.

That's good news for Google, as it has the time and resources to
fight individual lawsuits over book scanning.

Google scanned what it calls "snippets" of 20 million books
checked out from the library.  The company indexed those pages and
made them available online.  Google says the project is designed
to give people a taste of a book's contents, and encourage them to
find the book at a bookstore or library.

Google commissioned an earlier study in support of its position,
which found 45 percent of authors expected to see increased demand
for their work due to the book-scanning project.  Nearly one in
five said they had already made money from the project.

Lawyers for the Authors Guild -- the chief architects of this
lawsuit -- claim Google illegally stole copyrighted work.  Their
industry is wary of losing control of its digital content, much
like musicians did a decade ago with illegal file sharing.

At issue is whether book scanning represents "fair use," a legal
test where someone can upload copyrighted content for various
reasons, including commentary, research, criticism, library
archiving or ranking by a search engine.

Both sides negotiated a class action settlement in 2008 that was
later rejected by the courts.  That earlier settlement provided
some insights into where Google would like to eventually take the
project.

The earlier, failed settlement would have given Google the ability
to upload as much as 20 percent of a copyrighted book's text and
place ads against that book's content.  Google would get 37
percent of the ad revenue and give the remaining 63 percent to the
book's author and publisher.

Universities and libraries would pay a subscription fee and make
the repository of books fully available to members.

A federal judge rejected the terms of the 2008 settlement, sending
the case back to court.

         Appeals Panel Sees Benefit of Digital Books Plan

Sci-Tech Today reports that billions of dollars are at stake in
the long-running dispute between the Author's Guild and Google
over Google's effort to digitize millions of books, but the
federal appeals court hearing the case questioned the reasoning
behind the class-action lawsuit, suggesting that many authors, as
well as society overall, could benefit from the project.

Judges on a federal appeals court panel spoke excitedly on May 8
about Google Inc.'s plan to create the world's largest digital
library, signaling that the court has a favorable opinion about
the value of the project.

Three judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan
were considering an appeal by Mountain View, California-based
Google of a judge's decision last year to grant class status to
authors represented in an 8-year-old lawsuit by lawyers for the
Authors Guild.

The judges seemed eager to stray from the narrow legal question to
talk about the merits of Google's effort, which has already
resulted in the copying of more than 20 million books made
available in their entirety or in snippets, generally depending on
the copyright or publishers' restrictions.

Judge Pierre N. Leval said the digital library would seem a "huge
advantage" for "perhaps many" authors who would want the operator
of the world's largest search engine to provide snippets to
potential customers who might buy their books.

Judge Barrington D. Parker cited the "enormous societal benefit"
that would result when someone at home accessed books that
otherwise would require a trip to a distant library.

Judge Leval belittled an argument by a lawyer for the Authors
Guild who suggested that people might read enough snippets of a
book that they would not want to purchase it.

"And if you spend 780 hours doing this, you'll save four dollars,"
Judge Leval said, adding that he was "skeptical there will be
millions of Americans lining up to use this method to save $13 on
a book."

The judge also referred to the "logic of the thing" as he
described how an academic author eager to get a treatise read by
other researchers might welcome Google copying the work rather
than collecting "a few dollars in damages because Google put it in
their database."

The Authors Guild is seeking $750 in damages for each copyrighted
book Google copied, which would cost Google more than $3 billion,
Google attorney Seth Waxman said.  The guild argues Google is not
making "fair use" of copyrighted material by offering snippets of
works.  Google has defended its library, saying it is fully
compliant with copyright law.

The appeals judges said they may not rule on the class-action
issue until the trial judge decides whether Google is making "fair
use" of the books if it only offers snippets to the public and
directs customers elsewhere to view or purchase it.

Judge Parker at one point asked Robert J. LaRocca, a lawyer for
the Authors Guild, if the litigation had "effectively scuttled
this project that many want to succeed."

Mr. LaRocca said the legal issues would not take another decade or
more to resolve.  He said one possible outcome was that Google
would be banned from going ahead with its plans, although he
called that outcome "very remote Relevant Products/Services" and
said it was more likely that the Authors Guild, if victorious,
would ask the judge to order a compulsory license requiring Google
to pay $750 for each new copyrighted book it copied.

"We're not trying to sandbag Google, if that's what you're
suggesting," Mr. LaRocca told the judges.


HEARST CORP: Unpaid Interns Intend to Pursue Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Greenfield, writing for The Atlantic Wire, reports that a
judge may have thrown out class-action status for the lawsuit
against Hearst Corp. for using unpaid interns at its magazines,
but the disgruntled former coffee-fetchers will continue the
fight.  "The case of the named plaintiffs and the people who opted
into the case will go forward," said Junot Turner, the Outten and
Golden lawyer handling the case.  That includes the "Norma Rae" of
unpaid interns Diana Wang, who interned for Harper's Bazaar, Erin
Spencer, a former Cosmopolitan intern, and six others.

By denying class action status for the plaintiffs, U.S. District
Judge Harol Baer's ruling bars Ms. Turner from representing all
unpaid interns at Hearst in the litigation because he didn't think
the "class" had enough in common.  "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 in his decision, noting that the
interns worked for different magazines.

While the case will proceed, the ruling is a big victory for
Hearst because they do not face any large class-action settlement
(in which, if they case goes against them, they would have to pay
damages to anyone who interned for the company without pay) and it
greatly reduces the fees the plaintiffs lawyers can expect, which
in class-action suits can be a percentage of the damages.  Rather
than winning a big bundle of class action money, the suit is now
about a few summers worth of minimum wages.  And, as Pepper
Hamilton attorney Richard Reibstein told Reuters, "What lawyer is
going to want to do work for that?"

Ms. Turner assured The Atlantic Wire that wasn't the case and she
is as confident as ever in her plaintiffs' individual cases.  "We
certainly expect to prevail there," she told The Atlantic Wire.

Plus, the fervor from young people to reform the system hasn't
died down much since last February when Ms. Wang filed her legal
complaint.  Although some organizations have reformed their intern
programs, just last February Washingtonian had a cover story about
the phenomenon perpetual intern.  ProPublica has also recently
launched an investigation into how many organizations are getting
away with not paying young workers.  And, for this summer's crop,
an NYU Sophomore got over 1,000 signatures from fellow students to
get the school to remove unpaid intern postings from its career
site.


HOSPIRA INC.: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Illinois Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. and certain of its corporate officers and former
corporate officers are defendants in a lawsuit alleging violations
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: City of Sterling
Heights General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F.
Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and
Christopher B. Begley, second amended complaint filed March 15,
2013 and pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding Hospira's
financials and business prospects and failed to disclose material
facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. The lawsuit alleges
a class period from February 4, 2010 (announcement of Q4, 2009
financial results) through October 17, 2011 (Hospira announced
preliminary financial results for Q3, 2011 on October 18, 2011).
The lawsuit seeks class action status and damages including
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


HORIZON LINES: Lawsuit Over Alaska Tradelane Services Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. and plaintiffs in a lawsuit relating to the
company's ocean shipping services in the Alaska tradelane have
agreed to stay the case that was filed and remains pending in the
District of Alaska.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business.

On February 23, 2011, the Company entered into a plea agreement
with the DOJ relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane and on March
22, 2011, the Court entered judgment accepting the Company's plea
agreement and imposed a fine of $45.0 million payable over five
years without interest. On April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the
fine from $45.0 million to $15.0 million payable over five years
without interest.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a class
action lawsuit relating to ocean shipping services in the Alaska
tradelane was filed and remains pending in the District of Alaska.
The Company and the class plaintiffs have agreed to stay the
Alaska litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the purported class action lawsuit in Alaska.


HYATT HOTELS: Continues to Face Antitrust MDL in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
In September 2012, a putative class action was filed against Hyatt
Hotels Corporation, several other hotel companies and several
online travel companies in federal district court in Connecticut
seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for
an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws.

The online travel companies and the other hotel companies have
also been named in other actions, and these cases and the case
naming the Company have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Texas.

The Company disputes the allegations and will defend its interests
vigorously.


INVESTORS BANCORP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2013, Investors Bancorp, Inc. and Roma Financial
Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a putative class action
captioned Joseph T. Zalescik v. Peter Inverso, Michele Siekerka,
Alfred DeBlasio, Jr., Thomas Bracken, Robert Albanese, William
Walsh, Jr., Dennis Bone, Robert Rosen, Jeffrey Taylor, Roma
Financial Corporation, Roma Financial Corporation, MHC, Roma Bank,
Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp MHC, and Investors
Bank, pending before the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County.

As described in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus of Investors
Bancorp and Roma Financial, dated April 26, 2013 (the "Joint Proxy
Statement"), regarding the proposed merger (the "Merger") of Roma
Bank with and into Investors Bank, Roma Financial within and into
Investors Bancorp and Roma Financial Corporation, MHC with and
into Investors Bancorp, MHC, the Action relates to the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 19, 2012 by and among (i)
Investors Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc. and Investors Bancorp,
MHC, and (ii) Roma Bank, Roma Financial Corporation and Roma
Financial Corporation, MHC.  Pursuant to the MOU, Roma Financial
and Investors Bancorp agreed to make available additional
information to Roma Financial and Investors Bancorp stockholders.
The additional information is contained in the Joint Proxy
Statement.

Investors Bancorp, Roma Financial and the other defendants deny
all of the allegations in the Action and believe the disclosure in
the Registration Statement on Form S-4, filed on March 19, 2013,
was adequate under the law.  Nevertheless, Investors Bancorp, Roma
Financial and the other defendants have agreed to settle the
Action in order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of
further litigation.


IVY ASSET: Judge Approves Attorney Fees in Feeder Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a federal judge in
New York approved a hotly disputed fee for lawyers who negotiated
a $217 million settlement with Madoff "feeder funds," but only
after leveling harsh criticism at the firms for trying to obtain
excessive markups for low-paid contract attorneys.

In a 43-page opinion issued on May 9, U.S. District Judge Colleen
McMahon rejected the New York Attorney General's objection to a
$40.7 million fee request from lawyers led by Lowey Dannenberg who
obtained the settlement from Ivy Asset Management on behalf of
pension funds that lost money in the Bernie Madoff swindle.

The NYAG argued the fee was excessive because the state had
already reached a tentative, $140 million settlement and the
private lawyers didn't deserve to reap a fee for the AG's work.
Judge McMahon rejected the state's argument, however, noting that
the AG did little to pursue the settlement further after Ivy
demanded a release from related civil suits.

"I will not allow the NYAG to take credit for a settlement that,
for whatever reason, it did not obtain," she wrote.  "Once the
prospect of a settlement disappeared, so did the Attorney
General."

Judge McMahon was critical of the thousands of hours Lowey
Dannenberg and other firms including Bernstein Liebhard and Cohen
Milstein spent reviewing documents.  Critics including the NYAG in
this case say class-action firms spend far too much time reviewing
documents, knowing they can submit the hours run up by low-paid
contract attorneys at a substantial markup.

The private effort required 110 lawyers and more than 67 staff and
paralegals, the NY AG said, compared with three lawyers and
support staff who combed through the identical set of documents
and negotiated a $140 million settlement.

In a March order, Judge McMahon required the lawyers to hand over
their billing records so she could determine whether the hours
were justified.  On May 9, she generally praised the work of the
private lawyers but said she regretted not setting firm ground
rules on document review:

"There is little excuse in this day and age for delegating
document review (particularly primary review or first pass review)
to anyone other than extremely low-cost, low-overhead temporary
employees (read, contract attorneys) -- and there is obviously no
excuse for paying those temporary, low-overhead employees $40 or
$50 an hour and then marking up their pay ten times for billing
purposes."

She ordered the law firms to cut their hours submitted for
document review by 25%, which will reduce the fee below the
suggested $40.7 million by an undetermined amount.  Even at the
higher level, she noted, it is below the 22% Lowey Dannenberg
negotiated with its clients and well below prevailing fee awards
in class actions in New York.

Judge McMahon's decision is also interesting because she says
there is "serious question" as to whether the New York AG "even
had standing to bring the lawsuits he filed."  Under the doctrine
of parens patraiea, she said, the NYAG cannot bring claims for
damages on behalf of private citizens or corporations.  Having
failed to obtain a settlement, "the NYAG had no real ability to
recover through litigation the money that plaintiffs had lost --
even on behalf of citizens of the State of New York."

"The weakness of the NYAG's position as a party to litigation
might well explain its failure to take even a single step to move
its lawsuit forward," she wrote.


JOLLY GOOD: FSIS Updates List of Stores With Recalled Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
7-oz. packages of "Jolly Good Melton Mowbray Brand Pie" products
that have been recalled by Jolly Good Meat Products.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/rwEk79,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

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


KROGER CO: Judge Refuses to Reconsider "Robocall" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge refused on May 9 to reconsider sending to
arbitration a proposed class action over alleged robo calls to
consumers by Kroger Co. and a Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
subsidiary, saying that case law "tucked away" in a footnote
didn't change his analysis.

U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz rejected a motion to
reconsider his November decision sending the case to arbitration,
noting that such motions are rarely granted and only in
exceptional circumstances.


LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer reports that DLA Piper has successfully acted for the
Los Angeles Lakers in a putative class action brought by a ticket
holder accusing the basketball franchise of sending unsolicited
text messages.

Judge George H. Wu of the US District Court for the Central
District of California ruled that the text message that plaintiff
David Emanuel allegedly received was not actionable under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the plaintiff
voluntarily provided his phone number.

Judge Wu dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that the
plaintiff expressly consented to receiving a text from the team by
first texting the Lakers a message that he hoped would appear on
the Staples Center scoreboard.

Adopting a 'common sense' application of the TCPA, the court held
that the text message the plaintiff received in response to his
initial text message was not actionable under the TCPA.

The DLA Piper team representing the Los Angeles Lakers was led by
Perrie Weiner and Joshua Briones and included Esteban Morales and
Ben Turner.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hacker Murphy, LLP on May 11 disclosed that the lawsuit, filed on
May 6, 2013 in Federal District Court, alleges that Ralph Crawford
and McDonald's Corporation engaged in the illegal practice of
time-shaving, in which a supervisor trimmed payroll costs by
repeatedly and routinely deleting compensable time from its
employees.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that defendants routinely
deprived employees of a 30 minute uninterrupted lunch break;
failed to compensate employees for all hours worked; failed to
provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate
of pay; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures
related to wage deductions; and, deprived employees of overtime.
The lead plaintiff is Jeffrey Schuyler, a former McDonald's
employee who was terminated after he reported the wage hour
violations to his supervisors.  Mr. Schuyler brings individual
claims for wrongful discharge in violation of Federal and State
Law.

The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all non-exempt
employees that worked in a Ralph Crawford owned McDonald's
franchise over the past 6 years.  The estimated size of the class
is 500 members.

The case is being prosecuted by Hacker Murphy, LLP, an Albany, NY
based litigation firm.  For more information please contact
Hacker Murphy, LLP at classaction@hackermurphy.com or
(800)213-3843 Website: http://www.hackermurphy.com/


MOD-PAC CORP: Shareholders File Suit Over Planned Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
MOD-PAC Corp. on April 11, 2013, said it entered into a definitive
merger agreement by and among the Company, Rosalia Capital LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and Mandan Acquisition Corp.,
a New York corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent,
whereby Parent will acquire, through a merger transaction.

On April 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Supreme Court, Erie County, New York in a matter entitled Philip
Guziec, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. William G. Gisel, Daniel G. Keane, Kevin T. Keane,
Robert J. McKenna, Howard Zemsky, Mandan Acquisition Corp., MOD-
PAC Corp., and Rosalia Capital LLC, Defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) Messrs. Kevin
T. Keane, Daniel G. Keane, McKenna, Gisel and Zemsky breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's public shareholders in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, (ii)  Messrs. Kevin T.
Keane, and Daniel G. Keane and Parent breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's public shareholders in their capacity as
controlling shareholders of the Company, and (iii) the Company,
Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The relief sought by the plaintiff in this action includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the Proposed Transaction and appropriate compensatory damages.

Each of the defendants denies any allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend the action.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Forbes Says Ruling May Cause League's Extinction
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lariviere, writing for Forbes, reports that there is a lot
of anticipation in the sports and legal communities about a ruling
that will be made next month in a four-year-old antitrust suit.  A
judge will decide if O'Bannon v. the NCAA qualifies as a class-
action suit which could result in the extinction of the powerful
NCAA.

As it stands currently, the suit, filed by former UCLA basketball
All-American Ed O'Bannon, is claiming the NCAA should not profit
from using the names and images of athletes without paying them.
If it becomes a class-action, the suit would enable all Division I
athletes who have ever had their names or images used to join it
and collect damages. Get your calculators ready if that happens.

In addition, future student-athletes would be allowed to broker
their own licensing deals, essentially being free agents, and
universities would be forced to engage in bidding wars to woo
recruits. It would completely change the landscape of college
athletics.

On the surface, it might seem the plaintiffs have a solid
argument.  But there are so many precedents in sports that defy
logic to not give a bevy of skilled NCAA lawyers the benefit of
the doubt in their case.

The NFL and NBA drafts are a perfect example.  Why are they legal?
Why can't a player choose where he wants to perform rather than be
bound by a system where, in theory, the worst team from the
previous year gets to select the best and the top teams are
relegated to picking last? Isn't this restrictive of a person's
right to choose where they want to make a living? Of course it is.
But it is accepted as common practice as are trades between
professional teams.

Another restriction the NBA placed on players a few years ago was
that they had to complete at least one year of college before they
could enter the draft.  Prior to that, future stars such as Kobe
Bryant, Kevin Garnett and LeBron James went right from high school
to the pros.  The NFL requires three years of college, although
one can be a redshirt year, before a player is eligible for the
draft.  Conversely, baseball and hockey players can be drafted
right out of high school. Couldn't this discrepancy be challenged
in court?

An inadequate defense would be economics as colleges pay coaches
millions of dollars a year and spend hundreds of millions more on
facilities that could be redistributed to the student-athletes.

The obvious question would be how do you determine what the star
quarterback receives compared to someone on the swim team? The
NCAA could also argue -- at least in terms of the revenue sports
-- that the athletes are already compensated with free
scholarships.

Although there are many anxious to see the big, bad NCAA be torn
apart by this case, my sense is the court system will not allow
that to occur.


NEW BALANCE: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes
---------------------------------------------------
Borden Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. (Montreal) disclosed
that a proposed class action settlement has been reached involving
New Balance Toning Shoes.

Pre-Approval Notice -- If you purchased New Balance Toning Shoes
your rights may be affected by a proposed class action settlement

WHO IS INCLUDED?

You may be a Class Member if you purchased in Canada the New
Balance Toning Shoes listed below from January 1, 2010 until
May 30, 2013.

TONING SHOES:

Rock&Tone, TrueBalance, Aravon Ria, Aravon Riley and Aravon Quinn

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The lawsuit claims that New Balance made certain
misrepresentations regarding the benefits of wearing its Toning
Shoes in its marketing and sales.  New Balance denies it did
anything wrong.  The Court did not decide which side was right.
Instead, the parties have decided to settle.

WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

A maximum Settlement Cap of not more than $155,000 is intended to
pay claims to eligible Class Members and the costs of the
settlement notice.  New Balance is also agreeing to refrain from
certain practices and to separately pay attorneys' fees, an award
to the Representative Plaintiff and the costs of settlement
administration.  Full details about the Settlement are on the
website at http://www.clg.org

WHAT TYPE OF COMPENSATION CAN YOU RECEIVE?

New Balance will provide to each individual Class Member that
qualifies for Compensation the following:

For a single pair of Toning Shoes: an amount of $100, without the
necessity of proof of purchase.

For two or more pairs of Toning Shoes: a maximum amount of $200,
with proof of purchase required for at least one of the pairs of
Toning Shoes.

For each Claimant who submits a valid Claim, New Balance shall
provide payment as described above, so long as providing such
Compensation does not exceed the Settlement Cap.  If providing
each Claimant with such Compensation will exceed the Settlement
Cap, then in such circumstances each Claimant's Compensation shall
be reduced on a pro rata basis.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

To get money, eligible Class Members must submit a claim form by
mail postmarked no later than November 14, 2013.  Payments could
be up to $100 for each pair of Toning Shoes purchased, up to a
maximum of $200 for multiple pairs of Toning Shoes, but will vary
depending upon the number of Claims submitted by all Class Members
and the costs of settlement notice, as specified more fully in the
Settlement Agreement.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

If you are a Class Member, you may (1) do nothing; (2) exclude
yourself; (3) send in a Claim Form; and/or (4) object to the
settlement.  If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you
must exclude yourself.  However, if you exclude yourself, you
can't get a payment, but you can sue New Balance for these claims.
If you stay in the Class, you may submit a Claim Form and/or
object to the settlement.

WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES?

A motion to approve the Settlement will be heard by the Superior
Court of Quebec, 1 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec on
June 21, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. in room 2.08.

If the proposed Settlement is approved, it will be binding on all
Class Members except those who timely and properly opt out.

If you wish to opt out, you must no later than August 19, 2013: i)
complete and submit by mail the Opt Out Form; ii) the Opt Out Form
is available on Class Counsel's website at http://www.clg.org
Class Members who want to opt out and who are residents of Quebec
must IN ADDITION give notice to the Clerk of the Superior Court of
Quebec.

If you wish to object to the proposed settlement, you must send a
written notice of objection to Class Counsel and Defence Counsel
by no later than June 11, 2013.  Your written objection should
include: (a) your name, address, e-mail address and telephone
number; (b) a brief statement of the reasons for your objection;
and (c) whether you plan to attend at the hearing in person or
through a lawyer, and if by lawyer, the name, address, e-mail
address and telephone number of the lawyer.  Class Members who do
not oppose the proposed settlement need not appear at the
settlement approval hearing or take any other action at this time.

WHEN SHOULD I MAKE A CLAIM?

The Claim Form is available on Class Counsel's website at
http://www.clg.org

A Claim Form must be postmarked no later than November 14, 2013.
The Claim form must be sent by mail to: New Balance Settlement
Canada c/o Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, attention Marie Gamelin at
1000, de la Gauchetiere Street West, Suite 900, Montreal, Quebec,
H3B 5H4.  There will be no further notice in the newspapers of
this Settlement Agreement.

WHEN DO I GET PAID?

Cheques will only begin to be mailed to eligible Class Members for
Compensation at the earliest starting on November 26, 2013,
assuming that the Settlement is approved and that such judgment
has become final.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

A complete copy of the Settlement Agreement and detailed
information on how to obtain or file a Claim are available on
Class Counsel's website at http://www.clg.org

To obtain a paper copy or for other information, please call Class
Counsel at the numbers below.

WHO REPRESENTS ME?

The Class Counsel, or law firm representing the petitioner, is the
following:

          Jeff Orenstein
          Consumer Law Group Inc.
          4150, Sainte-Catherine St. West, Suite 330
          Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 2Y5
          Phone: 1-888-909-7863 Toll Free
                 514-266-7863 Montreal
                 416-479-4493 Toronto
                 613- 627-4894 Ottawa
          E-mail: jorenstein@clg.org
          Website: http://www.clg.org

If there is a conflict between the provisions of this Notice and
the Settlement Agreement and any of its Schedules, the terms of
the Settlement Agreement shall prevail.

This notice has been approved by the Superior Court of Quebec.


NEW YORK: Emergency Management Plan for Disabled Inadequate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Weiser, writing for The New York Times, reports that New
York City is in violation of federal law because its emergency
management plans "do not adequately protect the rights of
individuals with disabilities," federal authorities said in a
court filing on May 10.

The city failed to address their needs in relation to "shelters,
transportation and evacuation, and emergency-related
communications," the government said in a 31-page document
provided to a judge in Federal District Court in Manhattan.

The judge, Jesse M. Furman, has been overseeing a class-action
lawsuit that was filed in 2011 after Tropical Storm Irene.  The
suit said that the city had failed to address the needs of its
disabled population in emergency and disaster planning, and sought
remedial action.  The case was tried before Judge Furman in March,
and he asked the parties to file papers before he ruled.

The office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in
Manhattan, was not involved in the case but made its views known
in a statement of interest.  It noted that the city's population
of disabled people was estimated at 900,0000, and that at least
118,000 of them lived within Zone A, which was subject to a
mandatory evacuation order during Hurricane Sandy last year.

The city has to ensure that "their safety and well-being are
safeguarded to the same extent as the rest of the city's
residents," Mr. Bharara's office wrote.

The city's Law Department said on May 10 that it strongly
disagreed with the federal government's position, and that the
city had "a robust and nationally recognized outreach program and
engaged in an aggressive and coordinated response during Hurricane
Sandy to meet the needs of and assist disabled New Yorkers."  The
government's decision "to ignore the city's effort and
comprehensive planning is troubling," the department added.

Shawna L. Parks, a lawyer with Disability Rights Advocates, which
is representing the plaintiffs, said she welcomed the federal
government's filing.


NORTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Affirms Medicaid Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Disability Rights North Carolina on May 10 disclosed that the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a challenge to a lower
court ruling in a Medicaid class-action suit against North
Carolina, finding that the defendant, a Medicaid managed care
plan, could not maintain its appeal without the state's
involvement.  Last year, a federal District Court ordered North
Carolina to halt reductions to home and community-based services
and restore lost services until the state's Medicaid agency and
its managed care contractor, PBH Healthcare (now doing business as
Cardinal Innovations Healthcare), provided beneficiaries with
adequate notices and opportunities for impartial hearings when
their services were denied, reduced or terminated.  Members of the
plaintiff class -- children and adults with severe developmental
disabilities -- were threatened with deteriorating health,
financial strain and forced to go to institutions to get care.

The Fourth Circuit dismissed PBH's challenge to a lower court
ruling finding that because PBH alone appealed, the court could
not disturb the lower court's order.  The court held that as an
agent of the state, PBH had no authority to challenge North
Carolina's decision not to join the appeal.

"[Fri]day's decision is important because it tells state
governments that they cannot simply hand Medicaid programs over to
private contractors and then walk away, leaving beneficiaries
without crucial, mandatory legal protections," said National
Health Law Program Legal Director Jane Perkins.  Doug Sea, an
attorney at Legal Services of Southern Piedmont added: "Because of
this decision, scores of our most vulnerable citizens who
desperately need the services that were illegally taken away from
them will continue to benefit from the lower court ruling and will
receive due process."

"Once again, the courts have confirmed that state Medicaid
agencies must assure that their agents do not deny due process,"
said Disability Rights North Carolina Litigation Director John
Rittelmeyer.

The firms representing the plaintiffs are Legal Services of the
Southern Piedmont, of Charlotte, NC; Disability Rights NC, of
Raleigh; and the National Health Law Program's Carrboro, NC
office.  Pro bono assistance was provided by Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer, & Feld.


QUICK TRIM: Settles Class Action Over Weight Loss Products
----------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached between Quick Trim LLC, Windmill
Health Products, LLC, Kimberly Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian-Odom,
Kourtney Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Jenner Communications, Inc.,
Kimsaprincess, Inc., Khlomoney Inc., 2Die4Kourt, Inc., GNC Corp.,
CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walmart Corp., Amazon.com Inc.,
Drugstore.com., Christopher Tisi, Vitaquest International, LLC --
"the Quick Trim Parties" or "Defendants" -- and Plaintiff Teresa
Anaya -- "Class Representative" or "Plaintiff" -- individually and
on behalf of the Settlement Class.

The Settlement resolves a Class Action lawsuit that alleges that
there were improper statements contained on the labels and in
advertisements for the Quicktrim Weight Loss System(R) and its
component products including QuickTrim Sugar & Carb Cheater(R),
QuickTrim Fast Cleanse(R), QuickTrim Extreme Burn(R), QuickTrim
Burn & Cleanse(R), QuickTrim Hot Stix(R), QuickTrim Fast Shake(R),
QuickTrim Satisfy(R), and QuickTrim Celluslim(R).  The case is,
Teresa Anaya v. Quick Trim, LLC., et. al., Case No. CIV VS 1201177
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino.

The Plaintiff challenges as improper certain weight loss claims
made by Quicktrim in its packaging, labeling, and marketing for
The Products.  Quicktrim vigorously denies these allegations and
denies any claims of wrongdoing.  The Court has not ruled on the
merits of Plaintiff's claims or the Quicktrim Parties' defenses.

Quick Trim LLC issued a press release to inform any customer that
has purchased the Products between August 14, 2009 and March 1,
2013, that the Settlement has been preliminary approved by the
Superior Court, and can benefit the consumers.

The Quicktrim Parties have agreed to provide the following
benefits to the Settlement Class:

Group A-1 Class Members: Each Settlement Class Member who
purchased a Quicktrim Product directly from Quicktrim will
automatically receive 50% compensation of the purchase price of
The Product(s) unless they elect to receive a coupon to be
redeemed at a retailer for Products with a retailed value of twice
the purchase price of The Product(s).  If you decide you want to
receive a coupon instead of receiving automatic compensation, you
must submit a Claim Form.

Group A-2 Class Members: Each Settlement Class Member who
purchased a Quicktrim Product from a retailer and who provides
copies of a valid receipt, cancelled check or credit card
statement showing that they purchased The  Product(s) will choose
either: (a) compensation of fifty percent (50%) of the purchase
price of The Product(s) purchased; or (b) a coupon which can be
redeemed at a retailer for The Product(s) with a retail value
equal to the full purchase price of The Product(s).

Group B Class Members: Each Settlement Class Member who does not
have a valid receipt, cancelled check or credit card statement
showing that they purchased The Product(s), but who provides a
Certification by way of the Claim Form, via U.S. mail or through
the Settlement website, affirming that they purchased The
Product(s), will choose either: (a) compensation in the amount of
twenty-five percent (25%) of the purchase price of The Product(s)
purchased (up to two (2) products); or (b) a coupon which can be
redeemed at a retailer for the Product(s) with a retail value not
to exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the Purchase Price of The
Product(s) up to the amount of two (2) Products not to exceed the
combined retail value of $42.00 purchased during the Class Period.

To receive your share of the Settlement and/or to learn more about
the lawsuit, please go to WWW.ANAYASUPPLEMENTSETTLEMENT.COM, OR
WRITE OR CALL ANAYA SUPPLEMENT SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR AT P.O.
BOX 2838, PORTLAND, OR 97208-2838 OR (866) 328-1994.  PLEASE NOTE
THAT THERE ARE TIME SENSITIVE DEADLINES THAT MUST BE MET TO ENSURE
YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT BENEFIT.  ALL CLAIMS MUST BE
POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE NO LATER THAN AUGUST 5, 2013.

Class counsel are:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Lina B. Melidonian, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  lm@kbklawyers.com

Defense counsel are:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Diane Sammons, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
                  dsammons@nagelrice.com

               - and -

          Ashley D. Posner, Esq.
          Posner Law Corporation
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 900
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403


PEREGRINE FIN'L: Trustee Asks Bankr. Court to Halt 8 Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that the Peregrine trustee is asking the bankruptcy judge
in Chicago to halt eight class-action lawsuits brought on behalf
of customers.  Employing theories sometimes used successfully by
the trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC,
Peregrine's trustee Ira Bodenstein said the suits duplicate the
"viable claims" he may have against former Chief Executive Officer
Russell R. Wasendorf Sr., Wasendorf's son, US Bank NA and JPMorgan
Chase Bank NA.

The class suits make claims of fraud against Wasendorf and his son
while alleging the banks failed properly to monitor segregated
accounts holding customers' funds.

In papers filed in bankruptcy court, Bodenstein uses two theories
to stop the class suits. He says property of the Peregrine estate
is involved, thus invoking the so-called bankruptcy stay that
should halt the suits automatically.  He also argues that the
court can use its equitable powers under Section 105 of the
Bankruptcy Code to stop the suits which otherwise will adversely
impact the Peregrine bankruptcy and customers' recovery.

There will be a June 26 hearing in bankruptcy court on stopping
the class suits.

The lawsuit to stop the class suits is Bodenstein v.
Pannkuk (In re Peregrine Financial Group Inc.), 13-00675, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

                     About Peregrine Financial

Peregrine Financial Group Inc. filed to liquidate under Chapter 7
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 12-27488)
on July 10, 2012, disclosing between $500 million and $1 billion
of assets, and between $100 million and $500 million of
liabilities.

Earlier that day, at the behest of the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, a U.S. district judge appointed a receiver and
froze the firm's assets.  The firm put itself into bankruptcy
liquidation in Chicago later the same day.  The CFTC had sued
Peregrine, saying that more than $200 million of supposedly
segregated customer funds had been "misappropriated."  The CFTC
case is U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Peregrine
Financial Group Inc., 12-cv-5383, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).

Peregrine's CEO Russell R. Wasendorf Sr. unsuccessfully attempted
suicide outside a firm office in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on July 9.

The bankruptcy petition was signed in his place by Russell R.
Wasendorf Jr., the firm's chief operating officer. The resolution
stated that Wasendorf Jr. was given a power of attorney on July 3
to exercise if Wasendorf Sr. became incapacitated.

Peregrine Financial is the regulated unit of the brokerage
PFGBest.


PEREGRINE FIN'L: Trustee's Objection Prompts Class Action Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
in Chicago on May 10 put a hold on class action litigation over
Peregrine Financial Group Inc.'s failure after the estate's
bankruptcy trustee found potentially "viable claims" against
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and U.S. Bank N.A. over the handling of
customer funds.  Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ordered the 60-day
stay after Chapter 7 trustee Ira Bodenstein said in a bankruptcy
court filing that although his investigation into Peregrine's
failure was ongoing, he had found enough evidence against the
failed firm's founder, Russell Wasendorf.

According to American Banker's Chris Cumming, the Peregrine
trustee is considering bringing claims against JPMorgan Chase and
U.S. Bancorp for allegedly permitting the embezzlement that
brought down the brokerage last summer.

Mr. Bodenstein sees evidence that the banks "breached a variety of
duties" to Peregrine's customers and is investigating "a number of
viable claims" against them, he wrote in a complaint filed on
May 8 in an Illinois bankruptcy court.  The court granted
Mr. Bodenstein's request to delay a class-action suit against the
estate while it investigates claims against the banks as well as
the brokerage's former management, according to American Banker.

The banks allowed former Peregrine Chief Executive Russell
Wasendorf to use segregated customer accounts as a "personal
piggybank," the class-action filed by former customers in December
alleges.  It accuses U.S. Bank of fraud and negligence and
JPMorgan of breach of contract.  Mr. Wasendorf is serving a life
sentence in federal prison for stealing more than $215 million
from Peregrine's customers over nearly 20 years, American Banker
discloses.

The two banks' motion to dismiss the charges in the class-action
suit was set to be heard on May 13, according to American Banker.

                     About Peregrine Financial

Peregrine Financial Group Inc. filed to liquidate under Chapter 7
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 12-27488)
on July 10, 2012, disclosing between $500 million and $1 billion
of assets, and between $100 million and $500 million of
liabilities.

Earlier that day, at the behest of the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, a U.S. district judge appointed a receiver and
froze the firm's assets.  The firm put itself into bankruptcy
liquidation in Chicago later the same day.  The CFTC had sued
Peregrine, saying that more than $200 million of supposedly
segregated customer funds had been "misappropriated."  The CFTC
case is U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Peregrine
Financial Group Inc., 12-cv-5383, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).

Peregrine's CEO Russell R. Wasendorf Sr. unsuccessfully attempted
suicide outside a firm office in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on July 9.

The bankruptcy petition was signed in his place by Russell R.
Wasendorf Jr., the firm's chief operating officer. The resolution
stated that Wasendorf Jr. was given a power of attorney on July 3
to exercise if Wasendorf Sr. became incapacitated.

Peregrine Financial is the regulated unit of the brokerage
PFGBest.


POWELL COMPANY: Recalls 6,300 Anywhere Lounger Bean Bag Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Powell Company, of Culver City, California; and
manufacturer, L. Powell Acquisition Corp., of Culver City,
California, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,300 Anywhere
Lounger Bean Bag Chairs.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Bean bag chairs without a permanent zipper closure allow young
children to unzip, ingest or inhale the small beads inside of the
bean bag chair, posing a suffocation and strangulation hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled Anywhere Lounger bean bag chairs are 100% polyester
or 100% cotton and measure about 51 inches in height with a 43
inch wide base.  Recalled colors include purple (item 199-B004),
chocolate (item 199-B005), bayou blue (item 199-B006), pink (item
199-B007), lime green (item 199-B008), denim (item 199-B009),
black and white (item 199-B012), striped black and white (item
199-B014), natural (item 199-B016) and camo (item 199-B017).  The
item number is printed on the product packaging and Powell Company
is printed on the label on the bean bag chairs.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/2JSwEH

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
furniture stores nationwide including W.S. Badcock, Value City
Furniture, Nebraska Furniture Mart and online at www.Groupon.com
from June 2012 to February 2013 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately take the Anywhere Lounger away from
young children, inspect the bean bag chair to see if the exterior
zipper can be opened and if the zipper on your chair can open
contact  Powell Company to receive a free Safety Enhancement
Repair Kit.  Powell Company may be reached at (800) 622-4456 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time or online at
http://www.powellcompany.com/and click on Anywhere Lounger Safety
Enhancement Kit for more information.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Suit v. Brokerage Firm Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court, California issued an order staying
most of the proceedings in Barasani v. Coldwell Banker Residential
Brokerage Company until the next status conference in May 2013.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Barasani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company alleging
that the company had misclassified all of its sales associates as
independent contractors when they were actually employees. The
complaint further alleges that, because of the misclassification,
the company has violated several sections of the Labor Code
including Section 2802 for failing to reimburse plaintiff and the
class for business related expenses and Section 226 for failing to
keep proper records. The complaint also asserts a Section 17200
Unfair Business Practices claim for misclassifying the sales
agents. The court issued an order staying most of the proceedings
until the next status conference in May 2013.

Accordingly, Realogy Holdings Corp. has yet to file an answer or
other responsive pleading to the complaint.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Rothstein Argues Right to Pursue Ally Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action captioned Rothstein, et al. v.
GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al., No. 1:12-CV-3412-AJN (S.D.N.Y), argue
that Ally Financial Inc. and Ally Bank are not entitled to the
relief they sought, specifically, the enforcement of the
automatic stay by enjoining the prosecution of purported alter-
ego and veil-piercing claims.

As reported in the Jan. 16, 2013 edition of the TCR, Ally
Financial Inc. and Ally Bank are asking the Bankruptcy Court to
enforce the automatic stay by (a) enjoining the plaintiffs in the
putative class action entitled Landon Rothstein, et al. v. GMAC
Mortgage, LLC, et al., No. 1:12-cv-03412-AJN (S.D.N.Y.) and their
attorneys from pursuing the claims they assert in the Class Action
against Ally and (b) declaring the assertion of those claims in
the Class Action void ab initio.

The Rothstein Plaintiffs assert that as to Ally Bank, the premise
of the motion is false.  The Rothstein Plaintiffs tell the
Bankruptcy Court that they do not assert any alter-ego or veil-
piercing claims against Ally Bank.  Rather, they only assert
claims for agency liability and contract liability against Ally
Bank, Mark A. Strauss, Esq., at Kirby McInerney LLP, in New York,
says.  Those claims are direct and personal, not conceivably
derivative or otherwise property of the estate, and not subject
to the automatic stay, Mr. Strauss tells the Court.

The automatic stay is also inapplicable to the Rothstein
Plaintiffs' claims against AFI because the Plaintiffs allege
direct claims based on AFI's own independent violations and
breaches of duty, Mr. Strauss further argues.  The Plaintiffs'
alter-ego and veil-piercing claims against AFI are based on
allegations of "particularized injury," not "generalized" injury
as AFI and Ally Bank contended, he says.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Mark A. Strauss, Esq.
         J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
         KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
         825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         Fax: (212) 751-2540
         Email: mstrauss@kmllp.com
                bwalker@kmllp.com

                          Ally Responds

Ally argues that, rather than supporting their position, the
Plaintiffs' Objection highlights the need to enforce or extend
the automatic stay to enjoin prosecution of the class action
against Ally, by confirming that the Plaintiffs' claims and the
damages they seek are entirely dependent on the conduct of Debtor
GMAC Mortgage Inc.  Indeed, Ally notes, the Plaintiffs filed
their Proofs of Claim against GMACM and Residential Capital, LLC,
which merely attach and incorporate their original Complaint and
the Amended Complaint in the Class Action.  Thus, the only way
the Plaintiffs can prove their claims in the Class Action is by
proving the conduct of GMACM.  Not only are the Plaintiffs'
claims in the Class Action identical to the claims asserted in
the Proofs of Claim, but those claims undeniably overlap with the
Debtors' claims against Ally that are the subject of the
Chapter 11 Examiner's investigation and that will be addressed in
any chapter 11 plan.

                        *     *     *

The hearing on the motion will be on June 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
The reply deadline for the Motion is June 5.

                     About Residential Capital

Residential Capital LLC, the unprofitable mortgage subsidiary of
Ally Financial Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 12-12020) on May 14, 2012.

Neither Ally Financial nor Ally Bank is included in the bankruptcy
filings.

ResCap, one of the country's largest mortgage originators and
servicers, was sent to Chapter 11 with 50 subsidiaries amid
"continuing industry challenges, rising litigation costs and
claims, and regulatory uncertainty," according to a company
statement.

ResCap disclosed $15.68 billion in assets and $15.28 billion in
liabilities as of March 31, 2012.

Centerview Partners LLC and FTI Consulting are acting as financial
advisers to ResCap.  Morrison & Foerster LLP is acting as legal
adviser to ResCap.  Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP is
the conflicts counsel.  Rubenstein Associates, Inc., is the public
relations consultants to the Company in the Chapter 11 case.
Morrison Cohen LLP is advising ResCap's independent directors.
Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLP is the claims and notice agent.

Ray C. Schrock, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves
as counsel to Ally Financial.

ResCap sold most of the businesses for a combined $4.5 billion.
The Bankruptcy Court in November 2012 approved ResCap's sale of
its mortgage servicing and origination platform assets to Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC and Walter Investment Management Corporation
for $3 billion; and its portfolio of roughly 50,000 whole loans to
Berkshire Hathaway for $1.5 billion.

Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL
BANKRUPTCY NEWS.  The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding
undertaken by affiliates of Residential Capital LLC and its
affiliates (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


ROMA FINANCIAL: Enters Into MOU in Lawsuit Over Planned Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2013, Investors Bancorp, Inc. and Roma Financial
Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a putative class action
captioned Joseph T. Zalescik v. Peter Inverso, Michele Siekerka,
Alfred DeBlasio, Jr., Thomas Bracken, Robert Albanese, William
Walsh, Jr., Dennis Bone, Robert Rosen, Jeffrey Taylor, Roma
Financial Corporation, Roma Financial Corporation, MHC, Roma Bank,
Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp MHC, and Investors
Bank, pending before the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County.

As described in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus of Investors
Bancorp and Roma Financial, dated April 26, 2013, regarding the
proposed merger of Roma Bank with and into Investors Bank, Roma
Financial within and into Investors Bancorp and Roma Financial
Corporation, MHC with and into Investors Bancorp, MHC, the Action
relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December
19, 2012 by and among (i) Investors Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc.
and Investors Bancorp, MHC, and (ii) Roma Bank, Roma Financial
Corporation and Roma Financial Corporation, MHC.  Pursuant to the
MOU, Roma Financial and Investors Bancorp agreed to make available
additional information to Roma Financial and Investors Bancorp
stockholders.  The additional information is contained in the
Joint Proxy Statement.

Investors Bancorp, Roma Financial and the other defendants deny
all of the allegations in the Action and believe the disclosure in
the Registration Statement on Form S-4, filed on March 19, 2013,
was adequate under the law.  Nevertheless, Investors Bancorp, Roma
Financial and the other defendants have agreed to settle the
Action in order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of
further litigation.


RURAL KING: Recalls 205 Tons of Deer Corn Due to Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Rural King Distributing of Mattoon, Illinois, is recalling 205
tons of Deer Corn, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with aflatoxin.

Aflatoxin is a naturally occurring mold by-product.  Animals that
have consumed any of the recalled products may exhibit symptoms of
illness including sluggishness, unthriftiness, or lethargy
combined with a reluctance to eat, yellowish tint to the eyes, or
diarrhea.  Consumption of feed containing high amounts of
aflatoxin can be fatal to some animals.  Deer Corn was distributed
to 63 retail stores in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.

Deer Corn is packaged in a green, black, and brown camouflage bags
weighing 50 lbs.  The product UPC Code is 689139348193.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The issue was called to attention stemming from testing by the
Office of the Indiana State Chemist.

Consumers are urged to return Deer Corn to the store where they
have purchased for full reimbursement.  Consumers with questions
may call the company at 1-800-561-1752 between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.


SEGA CORP: Gamers File Class Action Over Aliens False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Vuleta, writing for Games.on.net, reports that Aliens:
Colonial Marines was possibly the worst game ever made (in 2013).

This was particularly cutting because the work in progress
demonstration trailer had previously showed a far better game.
Some gamers were so riled up that they launched a class action
lawsuit against Sega and Gearbox for false advertising on Aliens:
Colonial Marines.

Opinion around the interwebs has been divided.  While most players
support the lawsuit, some just aren't sure whether it has a chance
of succeeding.  Today, we'll be looking at whether the Aliens:
Colonial Marines pre-release demonstration trailer was false
advertising enough to give grounds for a lawsuit.

Is it advertising?

First up, we need to get away from the idea that there is actually
a distinction between a game demonstration and an advertisement.
In Australia, false advertising standards are broad, and apply to
everything a business does.  The ACCC writes:

"The 'do not mislead' principle applies to all commercial
dealings.  It is not only advertising that can potentially
mislead. The principle covers any kind of commercial dealing --
for example, selling presentations, product descriptions,
packaging, contract terms, negotiating, representations -- where a
message is sent that creates or is likely to create the wrong idea
or wrong impression on the part of the recipient."

Under Australian law, a demonstration at a convention could indeed
be capable of being illegally misleading.  But whether such a
finding actually leads to a penalty, or simply a slap on the
wrist, is really a question of what damage was actually caused to
the buyers.  Under American law, this question is even more
relevant: the demonstration needs to have misled the buyer to the
extent they made a mistaken purchase.

Therefore, our next step is to consider what part the
demonstration played in convincing people to buy the game.

The hype problem

False advertising is usually cut and dry.  You write on the
packaging of a breakfast snack that it contains essential vitamins
and minerals, when in actuality it contains radioactive ooze.  Or
(more commonly) the snack contains so little vitamins that they
give no dietary value. In both cases, the customer was enticed to
make a purchase by a benefit that didn't exist.

Games introduce a thorny issue because so much of what convinces
people to buy is not traditional advertising.  It's hype.  Games
are heralded by a deluge of previews, gameplay demonstration
trailers, teasers, viral marketing, developer interviews, and
convention showings.

All these are important for at least creating awareness in the
gaming press.  This exposure builds up until people are convinced
that the game is worth buying. Without the pre-release
demonstration trailer, Aliens: Colonial Marines would have had
much less exposure, and therefore, less sales.

This was recognized, at least, when in response to the Colonial
Marines controversy, Sega was ordered to put "work in progress"
notices more prominently on its demonstration materials.
Therefore, there is clearly "a" problem.  But whether this means
gamers are entitled to damages also depends on whether the
demonstration actually misled them to lose money.

The pre-order problem

The key moment for deciding this case is the point at which gamers
handed over money, and what led them to do so.  Aside from
Kickstarter (which has its own problems with this), gaming is
perhaps the only industry that lets you buy something before it
even exists.

In the comments on one of our news articles, an example was given
of a concept car demonstration. However, no one hands over money
based on seeing a concept car at a show.  Advertisements are there
to entice a person to enter the showroom and take a test drive.
False advertising cannot occur at the concept car stage, because
this is not accepted to be reliable.

In contrast, many people do buy games based on pre-order hype.
This was certainly the case with Colonial Marines.  The problem
was exacerbated by Gearbox not keeping its pre-release gameplay
footage current after they knew they had a serious problem.

Although this has not really been tested in a court, these issues
make the gaming hype roughly equivalent to more traditional
advertising.  Arguably, the gamers that were enticed to pre-order
based on this footage (even if they should have waited for
reviews) are entitled to some compensation.

The vertical slice problem

Gearbox's comment on the lawsuit is quite . . .  angry.

"Attempting to wring a class action lawsuit out of a demonstration
is beyond meritless," was their response.  "We continue to support
the game, and will defend the rights of entertainers to share
their works-in-progress without fear of frivolous litigation."

Ouch.  The problem with this attitude is that the trailer does not
appear to be a true work in progress.  Given the sheer quality
difference between the trailer and the final game, it's clear that
the trailer was a "vertical slice": a marketing creation filled
with custom textures, animation, sounds, and sequences that were
never intended to go into the final game at all.

These slices divert resources from the actual game, because their
sole purpose is to invent something pretty that can be used to
drive hype.  Possibly, if the developers had spent the time on the
actual game instead of their marketing creation, the game wouldn't
have been such a disaster.

That is really a separate legal issue and one more suited to an
epic battle between Gearbox and Sega.  However, it does come back
to the point of false advertising laws.  False advertising is
prohibited because marketing is not meant to cover the flaws of a
product so brazenly: consumers are entitled to make purchases
based on true merits.  When a vertical slice has such a huge
difference with the final game, this is exactly the kind of thing
that false advertising laws are trying to stop.

As such, on principle the lawsuit is worth bringing -- at least as
a test case.  There are interesting issues about whether hype can
be advertising, and whether these laws can extend this far.

But even these aside, the point worth proving is that developers
should not spend half their budget on marketing hype in an attempt
to secure pre-orders.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Consolidated Claims Filed in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities litigation against
Swisher Hygiene Inc. pending in the Western District of North
Carolina filed their first amended consolidated class action
complaint.

There have been six shareholder lawsuits filed in federal courts
in North Carolina and New York asserting claims relating to the
Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Company's
Board conclusion that the Company's previously issued interim
financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31,
2011, June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011, and the other
financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form
10-Q for the periods then ended, should no longer be relied upon
and that an internal review by the Company's Audit Committee
primarily relating to possible adjustments to the Company's
financial statements was ongoing.

On March 30, 2012, a purported Company shareholder commenced a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, the former President and
Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and the former Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer ("former CFO"). The
plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the
Company's public filings.

In April and May 2012, four more putative securities class actions
were filed by purported Company shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the same
set of defendants. The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted
claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged false and misleading
disclosures in the Company's public filings. In each of the
putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs seek damages for
losses suffered by the putative class of investors who purchased
Swisher common stock.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative action was brought
against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's
directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another
purported Company shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In this derivative action, the
plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of
a possible restatement of the Company's financial statements.

On May 30, 2012, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO
filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the
cases in the Western District of North Carolina by requesting that
the actions filed in the Southern District of New York be
transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.

In light of the motion to centralize the cases in the Western
District of North Carolina, the Company, and its former CEO and
former CFO requested from both courts a stay of all proceedings
pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On June 4, 2012, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York adjourned all pending
dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer filed before
the MDL Panel. On June 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina issued a stay of proceedings
pending a ruling by the MDL Panel.

On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to
centralize, transferring the actions filed in the Southern
District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina. In
response, on August 21, 2012, the Western District of North
Carolina issued an order governing the practice and procedure in
the actions transferred to the Western District of North Carolina
as well as the actions originally filed there.

On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held
an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel
and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a
schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint
and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the
consolidated class action complaint. The Western District of North
Carolina stayed the derivative action pending the outcome of the
securities class actions.

On April 24, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended
consolidated class action complaint asserting similar claims as
those previously alleged as well as additional allegations
stemming from the Company's restated financial statements. The
Class Action Complaint also names the Company's former Senior Vice
President and Treasurer as an additional defendant. Defendants
have sixty days from that date to answer or otherwise respond to
the consolidated class action complaint.


TROPICAL VALLEY: Recalls Next by Nature Dark Chocolate Bananas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Valley Foods Inc. of Plattsburgh, New York, is recalling
next by Nature DARK CHOCOLATE BANANAS, 3 oz. bags, due to
undeclared milk and walnuts.  People who have an allergy to milk
and/or walnuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The affected next by Nature DARK CHOCOLATE BANANAS was sold to
distributors in Michigan, Oregon, Colorado, and New Jersey between
the dates of January 3rd 2013 and January 10th 2013 for
distribution to their retail customers.  Distributors where
notified to inform their customers of the recall of the product,
to immediately remove it from sale and discarded it.

The affected product is packaged in 3 oz. bags with UPC 8 17582
25600 4 and "Best by Date" of 12/18/2013 and 12/19/2013.  Picture
of the recalled products' labels is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm352841.htm

The recall was initiated after a retail store notified Tropical
Valley Foods that Dark Chocolate Walnuts were found in bags
labeled as Dark Chocolate Bananas.  Subsequent investigation
revealed that some Dark Chocolate Covered Walnuts were miss-
packaged into bags labeled as Dark Chocolate Bananas by the
chocolate coater.  Further label review revealed that the product
also contains undeclared Milk (from a sub-ingredient of the
chocolate coating).

No illnesses have been reported to date associated with this
problem.

Customers who purchased the affected product may return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact Tropical Valley Foods at (518) 314-7162, Monday - Friday,
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time.


UMG RECORDINGS: Directed to Produce Docs in Royalty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
RICK JAMES, by and through THE JAMES AMBROSE JOHNSON, JR., 1999
TRUST, his successor in interest, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UMG RECORDINGS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, No. C 11-1613 SI (MEJ),
(N.D. Cal.), is a consolidated putative class action for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and statutory violations of various state laws against UMG
Recordings, Inc., and its affiliated and subsidiary entities. The
Plaintiffs are recording artists and producers.  They allege that
UMGR underpaid licensing royalties on digital downloads of the
Plaintiffs' recordings by paying them at the lower "records sold"
rate, instead of at the higher "licensing" rate in their
contracts.

Before the Court is a joint letter brief seeking resolution of
previously argued discovery issues relevant to the upcoming class
certification.  On November 6, 2012, the Court ordered UMGR to
produce its download revenues on an artist-by-artist basis, for
artists with agreements with UMGR during the putative class
period, for each year since 1998, because it was relevant to the
issue of whether the Plaintiffs could establish a uniform claim
for damages during class certification.  Thereafter, UMGR sought
relief from the Order, arguing that the data should be produced
anonymously, if at all.  Judge Susan Illston denied UMGR's request
to reconsider the portion of the Order requiring production of the
agreements.  However, Judge Illston modified the order to permit
UMGR to provide the information anonymously, referring to each
artist by serial number instead of by name, as a "reasonable
measure to protect the privacy of the recording artists while
still providing plaintiffs with the data that they seek to prepare
for the class certification motion."

The Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the portion of
Judge Illston's Order allowing UMGR to produce the records without
identifying the individual artists because the Plaintiffs had no
prior opportunity to brief this issue, and it had not been raised
in prior meet and confer efforts or in argument before Magistrate
Judge Maria-Elena James.

The Plaintiffs also argued that the anonymous production would
handicap their ability to prepare or defend damages issues at
class certification.  Judge Illston ordered the parties to meet
and confer regarding this issue and to present any disputes to the
undersigned.

After carefully weighing the Plaintiffs' interests in the unedited
production of the download revenue data against those of the
recording artists in protecting access to their financial
information, Magistrate Judge James finds that production of the
unedited download revenue data is a reasonable measure to protect
the privacy of the recording artists, while still providing the
Plaintiffs with the data that they seek to prepare for class
certification in a meaningful way.

Magistrate Judge James finds that UMGR's concerns that officers of
the Court might violate the protective order does not withstand
scrutiny, given that UMGR has previously produced the same
artists' contracts by name.  The Court also finds UMGR's
contentions that the Plaintiffs will be unable to meaningfully
utilize the data unavailing given that UMGR has previously
asserted that the data could, in fact, be matched with the
artists' contracts.

To date, the Plaintiffs have only disclosed the method for
calculating damages for the nine named Plaintiffs, and have
consistently asserted that the download revenue data is what "will
provide evidence from which Plaintiffs will establish that damages
can be measured on a class-wide basis."

"Accordingly, the Court orders UMGR to provide the documents
subject to the stipulated Protective Order," ruled Magistrate
Judge James.

A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2013 order is available at
http://is.gd/IAcW1Wfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Old Pickens Doodle Line
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron DeKett, writing for The Greenville News, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed in federal court seeks compensation for
property owners along the abandoned rail line between the cities
of Easley and Pickens known as the old Pickens Doodle line.

The two Pickens County cities want to transform the line into a
recreational trail through the federal rails to trails program
similar to the Swamp Rabbit Trail in Greenville that supporters
believe would encourage healthy living and promote economic
growth.

The lawsuit, Juanita Campbell, et al. v. The United States of
America, lists the names of more than 50 plaintiffs who own
property along the line.  It was filed on May 8 in U.S. Court of
Claims in Washington, D.C. The defendant is the U.S. government
and the judge is the Honorable Victor J. Wolski.

The intent of the lawsuit is to gain just compensation for lost
value of property along the abandoned line, said plaintiff
attorney Thor Hearne, who is with Arent Fox LLP.

"It does not in any way stop the creation of the trail or the
conversion of the abandoned rail line to a public recreational
trail," Mr. Hearne said.

Mr. Hearne said when the federal Surface Transportation Board
approved Pickens Railway Co.'s request to abandon the line, the
board also designated the easement to be used as a recreational
trail.  The designation prevented landowners from assuming control
over their properties over which the easement runs, he said.

"Under the terms of the original railroad easement and under South
Carolina law, South Carolina does not own or possess any right to
grant the Cities of Easley and Pickens an easement across
Plaintiffs' land," according to the lawsuit.

Control of the property is held by the federal government with the
Surface Transportation Board governing what can be done with it,
Mr. Hearne said.

The lawsuit, citing the Fifth Amendment, states the homeowners are
due "just compensation."

Mr. Hearne said about 150 property owners are affected the
transfer of the easement to the rails-to-trails program.


VENTRUS BIOSCIENCES: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP on May 9 disclosed that it filed
a class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ventrus Biosciences,
Inc. securities between December 17, 2010 and June 25, 2012,
inclusive.  The action seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Ventrus securities during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the
Court no later than July 8, 2013.  Any member of the investor
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Based in New York, New York, Ventrus, a Delaware corporation, is a
development stage pharmaceutical company which is focused on late-
stage prescription drugs for the treatment of gastrointestinal
disorders, specifically hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal
incontinence.  Ventrus' lead products are topical treatments for
hemorrhoids, which target a specific serotonin receptor.

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the
Company's lead product iferanserin (VEN 309).  The Company
described VEN 309 as a new chemical entity for the topical
treatment of symptomatic internal hemorrhoids.  The Company stated
that in seven clinical studies between 1993 and 2003, VEN 309
demonstrated good tolerability and no severe adverse events while
showing statistically significant improvements in bleeding,
itchiness, and pain.

Specifically, during the Class Period the Company touted that it
was in frequent and ongoing communications with the FDA, that
clinical end points for the VEN 309 trial had been agreed to by
the FDA, and that the prior results from Phase II trials of VEN
309 demonstrated the product's clinical efficacy.  The Company
represented its prior Phase IIb studies in Germany as evidence of
VEN 309's efficacy and as support for their claims that FDA
approval would be achieved.  These false and misleading statements
artificially inflated, maintained, and increased the price of
Ventrus' common stock, reaching a high of $20.25 during the Class
Period.

On June 25, 2012, Ventrus shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that VEN 309 failed its Phase III trial
before the FDA, and that the Company would suddenly abandon
further development of VEN 309, including any further attempt to
obtain FDA approval.  In response to this news, the price of
Ventrus common stock plummeted over 50% -- to $5.02 per share on
June 25, 2012, resulting in millions of dollars in damages to
investors.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


VISA INC: Continues to Face Canadian Merchant Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. provides these updates regarding the Merchant
Litigation, one of its Canadian Competition Proceedings:

In the Watson case, the plaintiff's reply materials in support of
class certification were received on November 30, 2012. The class
certification hearing commenced on April 22, 2013.

On December 3, 2012, plaintiff's counsel in the 1023926 Alberta
Ltd. action filed an application for certification of a class
action. On December 14, 2012, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed
another merchant class action in Alberta (Macaronies Hair Club and
Laser Centre Inc.), which effectively mirrors the claims in the
Watson case.

On January 4, 2013, plaintiff's counsel in the Canada Rent A
Heater (2000) Ltd. action (now titled Crown and Hand Pub Ltd.)
filed an application for certification of a class action. On
January 23, 2013, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed another
action in Saskatchewan (Hello Baby Equipment Inc.), which
effectively mirrors the claims in the Watson case.


VISA INC: Plaintiffs Want Dismissal of ATM Fee Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. provided these updates regarding the U.S. ATM Access Fee
Litigation on its 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On February 13, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and
dismissed the cases without prejudice. On March 12, 2013,
plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class action and the
consumer class actions moved for an order altering or amending the
court's February 13, 2013 order to provide that (1) the complaints
(as opposed to the cases) are dismissed without prejudice, and (2)
plaintiffs may move to amend their complaints.

On April 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class
action and the Stoumbos case moved for leave to file amended
complaints. On April 18, 2013, plaintiffs in the Mackmin case
moved for leave to file an amended complaint.


VISA INC.: Continues to Await Final Approval of MDL Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, various U.S. financial
institution defendants and the class plaintiffs signed a
settlement agreement to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims in
the interchange MDL.

The court entered the preliminary approval order of the class
plaintiffs' settlement agreement on November 27, 2012. On December
10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from the litigation
escrow account into a settlement fund established pursuant to the
definitive class settlement agreement. The settlement with the
class plaintiffs is subject to final court approval, which Visa
said it cannot assure will be received, and to the adjudication of
any appeals.

Visa said on its form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31,
2013: "We also signed a settlement agreement to resolve the claims
brought by a group of individual merchants which were consolidated
with the MDL for coordination of pre-trial proceedings. Pursuant
to the settlement agreement, we paid $350 million from the
litigation escrow account to the individual merchants on October
29, 2012, and on November 6, 2012, the court entered an order
dismissing the individual merchants' claims with prejudice."


WAL-MART: Seeks to Overturn Employees' $187.6-Mil. Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that as retail titan Wal-Mart seeks to overturn a $187.6 million
class action, one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices
hearing oral arguments on May 8 in Harrisburg questioned how the
class of employees could have proven its case without using the
company's payroll records.


WESTERN HEALTH: 2 Suits Over Privacy Breach to Be Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reports that two
class-action lawsuits filed against Western Health in relation to
privacy breaches at the health authority will be consolidated into
one.

During a case management meeting in Supreme Court [of Newfoundland
and Labrador] in Corner Brook on May 9, lawyers representing the
plaintiffs in the suits told Justice William Goodridge they will
be amending the pleadings filed to date in order to consolidate
the two actions.

Following the meeting, Scott Burden of Brothers and Burden Law
Office said, as anticipated from the beginning, his firm and the
firm of St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham have decided to act
together on the matter.  That decision means a carriage motion --
which would have seen the two firms competing over which one would
handle the matter -- won't be necessary.

The lawsuits were filed after a former employee of the health
authority inappropriately accessed the files of 1,043 patients
from June 2011 to May 2012.  The Brothers and Burden suit names
Valerie Dyke and Catherine Allen-Vater as representative
plaintiffs and lists Donna Colbourne, the former clerk accused of
the breach, and Western Health as defendants.  The suit filed by
Buckingham lists Barbara Hynes as the representative plaintiff.

"We'll have some discussions about the differences that currently
exist about the two statements of claim," said Mr. Burden of what
will happen next in the matter.

"There may be things that stay, there may be things that go, but
we'll determine that before long and of course get the pleadings
filed."

Mr. Burden said the two law firms have until June 1 to file the
necessary paperwork to combine the files and another case
management meeting has been set for June 27.

Mr. Burden said it was also decided on May 9 that a certification
application in the matter probably won't take place until the
fall.  That's when a judge will decide if there is a distinct
class to proceed with an action.

And Mr. Burden has no doubt that will occur.  "We wouldn't have
gotten this far if we didn't feel that way."

As for the damages been sought in the matter, Mr. Burden said that
has yet to be fully discussed.  "The defendants haven't asked and
we haven't offered."

Western Health and Ms. Colbourne have not filed a statement of
defense in the matter and Burden said that won't likely happen
until after the class is certified.

Meanwhile, as the civil matter moves ahead the breaches are also
subject to a matter currently before the provincial court.  In
late April, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner
charged a former Western Health employee with violating the
Personal Health Information Act in relation to the breaches named
in the civil suits.  The office did not name Ms. Colbourne as the
accused in the matter.  A press release issued at the time said
the former employee charged is scheduled to appear in provincial
court in Corner Brook on May 28.

Mr. Burden said it's too early to tell if the charge will affect
the civil lawsuit.

"It could have some affect on how quickly or slowly the matters
proceed, because if we're going to proceed through discoveries at
some point this same lady could be involved in proceedings in
provincial court.  So scheduling things might be an issue then."


WET SEAL: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $7.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
clothing retailer Wet Seal has agreed to settle a national class
action lawsuit initiated by four African American women, three of
whom reside in suburban Philadelphia, which alleged the company
had a policy of denying equal pay and promotional opportunities to
black employees.

The company and the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund jointly announced
the $7.5 million settlement on May 9.

As part of the settlement, Wet Seal's new CEO and Board of
directors have agreed to make changes to address the
discrimination charges that were contained within the complaint, a
civil action that was started by three women from Delaware County,
Pa., which neighbors Philadelphia.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Nicole Cogdell, learned she was
being terminated after a former company senior vice president
visited the store Ms. Cogdell managed in King of Prussia, Pa., and
learned that the plaintiff was black, the complaint had alleged.

In December, according to the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that former Wet
Seal executives had indeed racially discriminated against
Ms. Cogdell, whose co-plaintiffs in the suit included fellow
Delaware County residents Kai Hawkins and Myriam Saint-Hilaire.

Ms. Hawkins is an African American woman who formerly worked at
Wet Seal locations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California,
while Ms. Saint-Hilaire is a black woman who worked at the
company's King of Prussia location.

The fourth named plaintiff in the complaint was Michelle Guider,
an African American resident of North Carolina who worked at a Wet
Seal store in her home state.

The lawsuit was eventually filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Wet Seal is headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif.

According to the complaint, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission had found in its determination that lead plaintiff
Ms. Cogdell's charge that "corporate managers have openly stated
that they wanted employees who had the 'Armani' look, had blue
eyes, thin, and blond in order to be profitable," was legitimate.

Evidence of the discrimination was contained within company emails
and also came out of the testimony of former managers.

The lawsuit alleged that the national women's clothing chain
specifically targeted black female store managers because they
didn't fit the "brand image" the company sought to project.

The case was initiated in early January and subsequently given
class certification.

In a statement released by the NAACP, whose lawyers represented
the plaintiffs along with attorneys from Pennsylvania and
California firms, Ms. Cogdell said, "Being targeted for
termination from a job I loved because of my race was a nightmare.
It was important for me to be a force for change, but I could not
have done it without the support of other employees who spoke out
against discrimination.

"Wet Seal has now committed to strong, fair policies because we
took a stand," she continued.  "I hope these changes will create
opportunities for all deserving employees, regardless of their
race."

Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the NAACP's
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said in a statement that the
settlement is a showing that Wet Seal is attempting to "right its
wrongs."

"It has agreed to address our claims challenging the treatment of
black workers in its retail stores," she said in a statement.  "No
one should have the cards stacked against them on their job simply
because of their race."

The plaintiffs were also represented by attorneys from Media, Pa.-
based Gallagher, Schoenfeld, Surkin, Chupein & DeMis, and Oakland,
Calif.-based Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson.

In a statement, Nancy DeMis, of Gallagher Schoenfeld, said the
settlement brings a "sad chapter to a close.

"We are proud to have had the opportunity to represent the
courageous employees of Wet Seal who stood up for what was right,"
she said.

Under the settlement, Wet Seal will pay $5.58 million into a fund
for current and past workers affected by the discriminatory
actions; track job applications to ensure diversity in hiring;
hire experts to develop updated job-related hiring, promotion, and
compensation policies and practices; and engage in regular review
and reporting regarding hiring, promotions and terminations of
minority employees.

The settlement still requires court approval.

According to NBC 10 Philadelphia, a judge must approve the
settlement at a June hearing.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Wants Class Action Transferred to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Jackson, writing for Sandusky Register, reports that Whirlpool
Corp. seeks to move a class-action lawsuit from a county court in
Fremont to a federal court in Toledo.

A Fremont law firm filed the suit March 28 on behalf of Tim Lagrou
and others who claim a group of patients became sick with cancer
because someone dumped toxic substances at the former Whirlpool
Park in Green Springs.

The lawsuit was assigned to Sandusky County Common Pleas Court
Judge John Dewey.

In a court filing, however, Whirlpool argues the federal court in
Toledo is the proper place to handle the case.  The law firm that
filed the original suit is fighting the move and wants to keep the
case in Fremont.

Whirlpool spokeswoman Kristine Vernier said the company is
invoking a federal law, the Class Action Fairness Act.

"This act was passed by Congress so that cases like this would be
managed in the federal courts," she said.

Whirlpool's attorneys said the fairness act applies to class-
action cases involving a supposed class of more than 100 members
and diverse parties.  The company is headquartered in Michigan,
the filing notes.

The lawsuit seeks damages of more than $5 million, which would
meet another requirement of the fairness act, according to
Whirlpool's court filings.

The Albrechta & Coble law firm in Fremont filed the original
lawsuit.  Attorney Joe Albrechta said his firm is preparing to
file a response explaining why the case should stay in Fremont.

"It's a matter of state injury.  It's a matter involving
individuals in the state of Ohio.  It is a particularly local
matter, confined to a very small geographic area," Mr. Albrechta
said.

The docket in federal court lists seven Whirlpool attorneys from
law firms in Cleveland, Denver and Charleston, S.C., Albrechta
said.  He hinted that he'll soon be bringing in additional
attorneys to help his small law firm.

"Stay tuned," he said.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwasher
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Whirlpool Corp. on
May 6 was hit with a proposed class action in California federal
court, accusing it of misrepresenting its Maytag-brand dishwashers
as reliable, despite a defective design resulting in frequent and
expensive control panel repairs.  According to plaintiff Kristian
Apodaca, poor design of the control panel used across the
appliance manufacturing giant's Maytag dishwasher range allows
moisture to enter the panel, causing many units to fail
prematurely, which the company has refused to acknowledge or
remedy despite the design mistake.


ZULILY INC: Recalls 560 Deezo Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Zulily, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, announced a voluntary recall
of about 560 Deezo boys and girls zip-up hoodies.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The sweatshirts and jackets have drawstrings through the hood
which pose a strangulation hazard to young children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper
outerwear.  In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a
voluntary standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines
and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves a Deezo brand boys', girls', and toddlers'
zip-up hoodies made of 65% polyester and 35% cotton.  The
sweatshirts and jackets have designs that include a heart with
arrow, swirl, alien, flower, guitar, motor scooter and circuit
board designs and come in the following color combinations: pink
with white or black trim; white with pink or green trim; blue with
a light blue and white trim and black with blue or green trim.

The following model numbers are included in the recall: 12501,
12502, 12503, 12504, 12505, 12506, 12507, 12508, 12509, 12801,
12802, 12803, 12804, 12806, 12807, 12808, 12809, 12810. Model
numbers are located on the care label sewn into the
garments side seam?  The garment's hangtag has
"happyfashion4kidswww.deezo.com.au" printed on it.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/ulGw0L

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Zulily.com from August 2012 to March 2013 for between $20 and $50.

Consumers should immediately take the garments away from children.
Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or
return the garments to Zulily for a full refund.  Contact Zulily
to obtain a return address label and instructions for returning
the garment.  Zulily, Inc. may be reached toll free at (877) 779-
5615 between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, and between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or Saturdays, online
at http://www.zulily.com/or by e-mail at service@zulily.com and
click on Contact Us/Product Recall for more information.


ZYNGA INC: Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit Due by Month's End
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motions to dismiss a consolidated securities suit
against Zynga Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California are to be filed by May 31, 2013, and a
hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 30, 2013.

On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives.

Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW.
On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between December 16, 2011 and July 25, 2012. The consolidated
complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an award of
costs and expenses to the putative class, including attorneys'
fees.

Under the current schedule, the defendants' motions to dismiss are
to be filed by May 31, 2013, and a hearing on the motion is
scheduled for August 30, 2013.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the above
securities class actions and will vigorously defend these actions.

Since August 3, 2012, eight stockholder derivative lawsuits have
been filed in State or Federal courts in California and Delaware
purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and
former directors and executive officers of the Company.

The derivative plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and violated California Corporations Code
section 25402 in connection with our initial public offering in
December 2011, secondary offering in April 2012, and allegedly
made false or misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial projections.

Beginning on August 3, 2012, three of the actions were filed in
San Francisco County Superior Court. On October 2, 2012, the court
consolidated those three actions as In re Zynga Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case CGC-12-522934. On March 14, 2013,
the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. On March 21, 2013,
the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the
action pending the ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal
securities class action described above.

Beginning on August 16, 2012, four stockholder derivative actions
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. On December 3, 2012, the court
consolidated these four actions as In re Zynga Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-CV-4327-JSW.

On March 11, 2013, the court endorsed a stipulation among the
parties staying the action pending the ruling on the motion to
dismiss in the federal securities class action described above. A
derivative action was also filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.

The plaintiff in the District of Delaware action voluntarily
dismissed the action on November 19, 2012. The derivative actions
include claims for, among other things, unspecified damages in
favor of the Company, certain corporate actions to purportedly
improve the Company's corporate governance, and an award of costs
and expenses to the derivative plaintiffs, including attorneys'
fees.


ZYNGA INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Secondary Offering of Class A Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc.,
et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County
Superior Court. The action was removed to federal court, and was
later remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements in
connection with a March 28, 2012 secondary offering of Class A
common stock.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who acquired
the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the secondary
offering. The parties in this action expect to negotiate and
submit a pleading and briefing schedule for court approval, and an
initial case management conference was scheduled for May 8, 2013.


ZYNGA INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Initial Public Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of its current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the
Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements
and who were not permitted to sell shares in a March 28, 2012
secondary offering.


* Class Actions Continue to Affect Companies, Carlton Survey Shows
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben DiPietro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
The 2013 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey found corporate
counsel reporting that class-action lawsuits continue to affect
companies, and corporate legal departments are devising better and
more innovative matter management and cost control tools to combat
them.  Overall, corporate counsel reported that although class
actions have risen by 16%, spending per suit fell nearly 14% from
2011 to 2012.  This 16% growth, coupled with the relatively
constant number of new class actions, indicates class actions are
taking longer to resolve.


* Lawyers Gain More Than Injured Parties in Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
According to The Patriot Post's Albert Maslar, existence of death
panels has been denied from the beginning, but the fact is that
these panels, whatever the title designated, amount to power of
politically appointed panels to approve or deny treatment and/or
medications for arbitrary reasons, mostly cost, as panels
determine which life is worth saving and which is not.

A notorious death panel is Planned Parenthood for the purpose of
killing future taxpayers, that receives half its funding from
taxpayers, half of whom are morally against paying for abortion.
Another one-man death panel is the one issuing Executive Orders to
kill the approved Keystone XL Pipeline that would eventually
provide two million direct and indirect jobs, all paying needed
taxes while removing need for expensive welfare benefits for the
unemployed.

The House of Representatives led by Speaker John Boehner had the
power to defund ObamaCare but caved in to President Obama who
fathered this budget-killing atrocity.  Other death panels are
corrupt bureaucracies that issue massive regulations that delight
in killing jobs with massive ridiculous regulations that are the
bane of prospective employers and the long-term unemployed.

Not to mention death panels using erroneous political correctness
to corrupt and kill families by killing morality and virtually
persecuting God and Christianity.  Military chaplains are
prohibited from preaching Jesus.  Then there is the constant
fracturing of the Constitution that is slowly but surely killing
the not much longer united United States.  No death panels? Count
'em.

Lawyers are at the root of death panels, imposing contradictory
regulations that guarantee the need for more legal services.  The
notorious "Gang of Eight" has been writing S. 744, a massive 844
page Immigration bill loved only by lawyers, lobbyists, and
advocacy groups who will capitalize on the legal needs of some 11
to 30 million illegal immigrants, and the ongoing mantra of the
proponents is that they are not "illegal."

Were the proposed S. 744 become law, the financial door would be
open wide for lawyers and advocates on behalf of illegal aliens.
The bill allows illegal aliens to sue government for amnesty,
individually or as part of a class action, and authorizes the
Attorney General to appoint attorneys to represent illegal aliens
at taxpayers' expense.  The bill authorizes illegal aliens to
avail themselves of the federal court system up to the Appellate
Court level, if they are turned down for amnesty.

S. 744 also obligates taxpayers to pay lawyer fees, as it strikes
existing language that states that an alien's right to counsel in
an immigration case must be at no government expense, and grants
the Attorney General "sole and unreviewable discretion" to appoint
or provide counsel to aliens in immigration proceedings.  AG Eric
Holder will rule for illegal immigrants, as his publicly stated
position is to create a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
that is a matter of civil and human rights.

Only lawyers can dispute illegal acts as being something other
than illegal.  "Will-writing lawyers" have been disparaged as the
big money is in frivolous lawsuits that are settled out of court
just to make the problem go away.  On the surface, Class-Action
lawsuits appear to be for the benefit of those damaged by
defective products or services.  But the fact is that class action
lawyers gain more than the injured parties they purport to
represent, as they actually choose themselves to represent their
best interest, massive fees, while the suitors are often left with
crumbs, if any remain after the rip-off.

Lawyers will never be out of work at the corporate level, as they
are needed to enable companies to comply with massive conflicting
regulations imposed by government lawyers of a hundred wasteful
bureaucracies who justify their existence by writing still more
self-serving regulations.

Pharisees in the Old Testament were the first recorded lawyers in
human history, and their forte was to design and impose laws,
rules, and regulations that eventually proved to be unbearable to
the people, as following the letter of the law often went contrary
to the spirit of the law, a commonality of conflicting legalities
of modern culture.

According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the
House and 60 Senators are lawyers, while a number more are lawyers
but list another primary profession.  What Congress then does best
is to provide fertile ground for their first love, the legal
profession.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," is a most
famous Shakespeare oft-quoted line from the play, "King Henry The
Sixth," but the original intent and context of the quote was
actually favorable to lawyers in that "the surest way to chaos and
tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent
thinking."

The high-profile murder case of Jodi Arias has reportedly cost
Arizona residents more than $1.4 million to finance her aggressive
state-appointed legal team but the cost-clock is still ticking.
Arias spent 18 days of the four-month trial on the witness stand
testifying in her defense, raising questions as to the right to a
speedy trial as stipulated in the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution as follows:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

This was arguably an open and shut case of the 2008 admitted
brutal murder of live-in boyfriend by Jodi Arias who claimed self-
defense.  Regardless of the merits of her claim, why is a 2008
murder case just being tried in 2013? The OJ Simpson trial spanned
nearly nine months, costing an estimated $9 million for Los
Angeles County, resulting in Mr. Simpson being found "not guilty,"
that is different from "innocent."  Mr. Simpson later in Civil
Court was found guilty and liable for damages in the wrongful
death of his ex-wife.  Do these trials deliver on the right to a
speedy trial, or are trials lengthened to pad legal fees?

Like Wall Street, politicians, and those driven by greed, lawyers
are not all good or all bad, but like foods and beverages that are
good but can be bad when taken in excess, the caveat is that most
food and drink when taken in moderation are basically good, and so
it is with good lawyers, except for those who use their powers to
game and abuse the system purely for profit.  Lawyers are like
women; can't live with them; can't live without them.


* Mayer Brown Tackles Multi-Defendant Class Action Removal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Ranlett, Esq., at Mayer Brown, reports that the Fourth
Circuit recently weighed in on a technical question involving the
process for removing a case against multiple defendants to federal
court -- namely, whether every defendant must actually sign the
notice of removal.  The Fourth Circuit concluded that "[w]e can
see no policy reason why removal in a multiple-defendant case
cannot be accomplished by the filing of one paper signed by at
least one attorney, representing that all defendants have
consented to the removal." Mayo v. Bd. of Educ., Nos. 11-1816,
11-2037 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013).

The Fourth Circuit is correct.  That said, at least some courts
are apparently willing to impose pointless technical requirements
despite the lack of justification.  The fact that there's a
circuit split on this issue is a perfect example.  In the wrong
court, the failure to get all defendants in a multi-defendant case
to confirm their consent to removal in the correct way can open a
trapdoor through which the case will fall back into state court.

In most class actions, this issue does not arise because the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) allows a single defendant to remove a
qualifying class or mass action even without the other defendants'
consent. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453(b).  But CAFA isn't always the basis
for removal. Perhaps the lawsuit involves a federal question or
satisfies the test for classic diversity jurisdiction, but doesn't
satisfy CAFA's definition of a class or mass action or its $5
million amount-in-controversy requirement (or the defendant
doesn't want to have to demonstrate that at least $5 million is at
stake).  Or perhaps the class action falls into CAFA's local-
controversy or home-state exception.  If so, the notice of removal
must satisfy the requirement in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b)(2) that
"all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join
in or consent to the removal of the action."  And typically that
joinder or consent must be done no later than 30 days after the
last-served defendant received the complaint. Id. Sec.
1446(b)(2)(B)-(C).

Unfortunately, the removal statute doesn't outline in detail how
each defendant's "consent" must be indicated.  The Sixth and Ninth
Circuits -- now joined by the Fourth Circuit -- agree that it's
enough for the filing defendant's attorney to confirm in the
notice of removal that all defendants consent.  See Proctor v.
Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009);
Harper v. AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 201-02 (6th Cir.
2004). That rule makes perfect sense; Rule 11 and ethics rules
make the signing attorney accountable for the truth of the
representation that all defendants join in the removal.

But the Seventh Circuit some years ago adopted an apparently
bright-line rule that "[a] petition for removal is deficient"
unless "all served defendants * * * support the petition in
writing, i.e., sign it." Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.3d 481, 489
(7th Cir. 1997).  And although the Fifth and Eighth Circuits don't
require every defendant to sign the notice of removal, they do
call for "some timely filed written indication from each served
defendant * * * that it has actually consented to" the removal.
Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1262 n.11
(5th Cir. 1988); see also Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d
1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2008).

It's difficult to imagine the need for that requirement.  How
often is there such a severe miscommunication between defendants
that the lawyer filing the notice of removal mistakenly certifies
that a defendant that prefers to stay in state court consents to
removal? And of that tiny fraction of cases, in how many are the
defendants that prefer to remain in state court so helpless or
oblivious to the filing of the notice of removal that they can't
file an objection? Given the extreme remoteness of the risk of
wrongful removal, it's hard to see why courts should adopt a
prophylactic rule requiring all defendants to sign the notice of
removal or to file a written consent in order for a removal to be
valid.

After all, that prophylactic rule isn't costless. Just ask a
defendant that is facing a motion to remand on the ground that not
every co-defendant signed the notice of removal or filed a joiner
within the 30-day limit.  That's what happened in Mayo -- although
the defendant school board certified in its notice of removal that
it had consulted with its co-defendant, a union, and obtained its
consent to removal, the union hadn't also contemporaneously filed
a separate joinder in the removal.  Instead, the union simply
dropped a footnote confirming the school board's representation in
its first substantive filing in federal court.  Thankfully, the
courts in that case saw reason and denied the motion to remand.
But not every court would have done so -- even though there is no
doubt that all defendants in fact consented to removal.

A lot of money gets wasting litigating over senseless
technicalities. The amount of time and effort that has been wasted
in litigating the validity of removals because of the everyone-
must-sign rule that a few circuits have adopted is just more money
down the drain.  Congress fixed some ambiguities in the removal
statutes in the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue
Clarification Act of 2011.  Assuming that the Supreme Court
doesn't eventually resolve this issue, it is worth putting on the
wish list for the next time Congress amends these statutes.


* Some Countries in Europe May Adopt Class Action System
--------------------------------------------------------
The Economist reports that for years French governments have
promised to permit class-action lawsuits.  But French businesses
hate the idea and besides, who wants to copy the Americans? Now,
however, Francois Hollande and his Socialists may allow such
suits, if a bill on consumer rights presented to the Council of
Ministers on May 2nd is adopted in anything like its present form.

This has upset people who fear that ambulance-chasing and colossal
damages are invading Europe.  But that is not what Mr. Hollande
has in mind.  This is to be class action a la francaise, or, as
its fans prefer to call it, "action de groupe".

The point of collective action is to enable people who have been
injured by the same wrongful behavior, but are unlikely to be
compensated much individually, to pool their costs to secure
redress.  The risk is that the scales will be so tipped towards
the claimant (as they are in America, through contingency fees and
punitive damages) that lawyers can force blameless defendants to
settle.  Since 1992 France has tiptoed between the two, with a
form of collective representation so restrictive that only a
handful of cases have relied on it.

                       Class Conscious

"Group actions" would strengthen consumers' hands a bit.  With a
few dossiers, a consumer association could bring a case on behalf
of all those who had suffered the same injury.  A judge would
decide on its merits, and set damages or devise a formula for
them.  The decision would be publicized, and members of the class
given time to come forward, and also to opt out.  But only
associations would be allowed to bring such suits.  Only consumer
and antitrust cases would be eligible.  And only financial damage,
not physical or emotional harm, would be taken into account.

Other countries in Europe are interested in extending collective
redress too, in part because American judges have taken to kicking
out non-American claimants from suits against non-American
companies filed in the United States.  Around 20 EU members permit
some sort of collective action to seek compensation, the European
Commission says.

The pace is picking up.  Italy and Poland climbed aboard in 2010;
Malta in 2012.  Germany recently extended a temporary law passed
in 2005 to facilitate a case brought by disgruntled Deutsche
Telekom shareholders.  Belgium's consumer-affairs minister has
produced a class-action proposal for debate.  And the commission,
which asked for views on collective action in 2011, plans to say
more about it soon.

Amsterdam and London are vying to be the favored venue for hearing
cross-border disputes.  Anne Marechal, a lawyer with DLA Piper in
Paris, points to the legally binding class-action-style
settlements that have developed in the Netherlands since 2005.
Claimants can negotiate on behalf of an entire class, as long as a
few are Dutch and a foundation is set up under Dutch law.  The
Amsterdam Appeals Court reviews the settlement, class members have
a chance to opt out and the agreement has the force of law.  The
most recent big-ticket settlement involved a non-Dutch defendant
-- Converium Holding, a Swiss insurer -- in a dispute with mainly
Swiss and British shareholders.

London is loth to be left behind.  In January the British
government proposed opt-out class-action suits in competition
cases.  Third-party litigation funds, which raise money for suits
from investors, crossed from Australia and America to Britain
several years ago.  Australia's biggest such fund, IMF, is now
eyeing the Netherlands, and Europe's newest, Alter Litigation, was
launched in February -- in France.


                             *********

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  * * *