CAR_Public/130527.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 103

                             Headlines


APPLE INC: Gov't Can Prove Antitrust Suit Over E-Book Pricing
APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California
BANCO SANTANDER: Expects 2013 Judgment in Planos Economicos Suits
C.R. BARD: Trial in Hernia Product Claims MDL to Begin in July
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Facing 2 Suits re Natural Gas Markets

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 2 Natural Gas Mismeasurement Lawsuits Pending
EDAC TECHNOLOGIES: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
EDISON MISSION: Suit v. Midwest Stayed Due to Chapter 11 Filing
EDISON MISSION: State Law Environmental Claims Dismissed
FERRO CORP: Faces Suits Over A. Schulman's Acquisition Proposal

GULF STREAM: Recalls 5 CONQUEST and ULTRA SUPREME Models
HANOVER INSURANCE: Not Opposed to "Durand" Class Certification
HEADWATERS INC: Awaits Ruling in Davidson, Adtech Lawsuit
HEADWATERS INC: Archstone Pursues Last Claim v. Eldorado
HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Overturns Inkjet Printer Settlement

INSOLROLL WINDOW: Recalls 1,500 Roller Shades With Solar Motors
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sued for "Unfair Business Practice"
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Handling of DNA
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sued Over "Unsolicited" Fax Messages
LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Various Collections of Youth Beds

LL BAKERY: Recalls Enriched White Bread and Italian Cream Danish
LORILLARD INC: Appeal in Indirect Purchaser Suit Still Pending
LORILLARD INC: Flight Attendant Suits vs. Unit Remain Pending
LORILLARD INC: Loews Still Defends Product Liability Suits
LORILLARD INC: Still Defends Tobacco Antitrust Suit vs. Unit

LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in West Virginia
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: June 2013 Hearing Set in ERISA Lawsuit
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Still Awaits Order in "Silverman" Suit Appeal
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Awaits Decision in Fuel Surcharges MDL Appeal
NORSE ENERGY: Sued by Land Owners Over Force Majeure Declaration

OMNICARE INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
OMNICARE INC: Consolidated Kentucky Suit Dismissed in March
PANERA BREAD: Has Reserved $3.7 Million in Accrued Expenses
PG&E CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuit Over San Bruno Accident
PG&E CORPORATION: Seeks Stay of Action Pending CPUC Probe

PIEDMONT OFFICE: Gets Final Approval of $7.5MM Settlement
POLYONE CORPORATION: Settles Suit Over Spartech Acquisition
SEMPRA ENERGY: No Date Yet to Review Ruling in Wildfire Suit
SEMPRA ENERGY: Unit Still Faces Mexico, Calif. Power Outage Suit
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Suits and Claims Seeking PI Damages

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Lead Pigment and Lead-Based Paint Suits Pending
SUPERVALU INC: Seeks En Banc Rehearing in Suit Over C&S Deal
SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Still Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
TRIUMPH: Recalls 24 SPEED TRIPLE Model for 2012 and 2013
TRIUMPH: Recalls 33 SPEED TRIPLE Model Motorcycles

TRIUMPH: Recalls 61 DAYTONA 675, and DAYTONA 675R Models
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Bank Continues to Face Overdraft Fees Suit
UNITED STATES: Class in Suit vs. Treasury Dept. Workers Certified
UNITIL CORP: Plaintiffs Appealed Ruling in Suit vs. Fitchburg
USG CORP: Chinese Wallboard Damage Claims vs. L&W Remain Pending

USG CORP: Suits Over Pricing of Gypsum Wallboards Consolidated
VANGUARD HEALTH: Texas Unit Continues to Face Antitrust Suit
VANGUARD HEALTH: DMC May be Lone Non-Settling Defendant
VIROPHARMA INCORPORATED: Faces Securities Suit Over Vancocin
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Fuel/Environmental Charges Suits Still Pending

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Received Final OK of ERISA Suit Settlement


                             *********


APPLE INC: Gov't Can Prove Antitrust Suit Over E-Book Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Bray of The Wall Street Journal reports that in a potential
major setback for Apple Inc., a federal judge, who will preside
over a coming antitrust trial that will determine whether it
engaged in a conspiracy to raise prices for e-books, said May 23,
2013, that the government is likely able to prove its case against
the computer maker.

The Justice Department sued Apple and five major publishers,
alleging they colluded to raise the price of e-books in response
to discount pricing by Amazon.com Inc.  The publishers have all
entered into settlements with the Justice Department and in a
separate lawsuit by a group of state attorneys general.

Apple, which denies the allegations, has not settled.

On Thursday, May 23, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote for the
Southern District of New York acknowledged that she hadn't
reviewed all of the evidence in the case and that no final
decision has been made.  But she said her preliminary view favors
the U.S.'s theory at trial.

"So, understanding that this is a tentative view, before I have
the benefit of the testimony of the witnesses and further argument
from counsel, I believe that the government will be able to show
at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and
facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the
circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the
agreements, will confirm that," the judge said in a lengthy and,
otherwise, uneventful hearing Thursday, May 23, afternoon.

The bench trial, which is expected to last as long as three weeks,
begins June 3.

Prior to the alleged collusion, Amazon had been selling new best-
sellers in e-book form for $9.99.  After that supposed meeting of
the minds between Apple and the publishers, e-book prices for best
sellers rose to $12.99 and $14.99, the Justice Department has
alleged in its lawsuit.

Orin Snyder, a lawyer for Apple, said after Thursday's hearing
that the company strongly disagreed with the court's preliminary
statements about the case.

"The court made clear that this was not a final ruling and that
the evidence at trial will determine the verdict," Mr. Snyder
said.  "This is what a trial is for.  We look forward to
presenting our evidence in open court and proving that Apple did
not conspire to fix prices.  The evidence will show that Apple
benefited consumers by injecting much-needed competition and
innovation into the emerging market."

Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment
Thursday, May 23.

Macmillian, a unit of Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH,
became the last major publisher to settle with the Justice
Department in February.  Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group; CBS
Corp.'s Simon & Schuster; News Corp.'s HarperCollins Publishers;
and Pearson PLC's Penguin Group (USA) also have settled.  None of
the publishers admitted wrongdoing.


APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuits against Apple Inc. remain
pending in California, according to the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

These related cases -- The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation
(formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple
Computer, Inc.); and Somers v. Apple Inc. -- were filed on January
3, 2005, July 21, 2006, and December 31, 2007, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of
iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims including
alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on the iTunes
Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law.  The
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for the class, treble damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys fees.  The
Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights management free
versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an order requiring
the Company to license its digital rights management to all
competing music players.  The cases are currently pending.

Headquartered in Cupertino, California, Apple Inc. --
http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and markets mobile
communication and media devices, personal computers, and portable
digital music players, and sells a variety of related software,
services, peripherals, networking solutions, and third-party
digital content and applications.  The Company's products and
services include iPhone(R), iPad(R), Mac(R), iPod(R), Apple TV(R),
a portfolio of consumer and professional software applications,
the iOS and OS X(R) operating systems, iCloud(R), and a variety of
accessory, service and support offerings.


BANCO SANTANDER: Expects 2013 Judgment in Planos Economicos Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander, S.A. expects that judgment will be handed down
this year in the class action lawsuits relating to inflation-
linked contracts, known as planos economicos, according to the
Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Like the rest of the banking system, Banco Santander (Brasil)
S.A., a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A., has been the subject
of claims from customers, mostly depositors, and of class actions
brought for a common reason by consumer protection associations
and the public prosecutor's office, among others, in connection
with the possible effects of certain legislative changes relating
to differences in the monetary adjustments to interest on bank
deposits and other inflation-linked contracts (planos economicos).
The plaintiffs considered that their vested rights in relation to
the inflationary adjustments had been impaired due to the
immediate application of these adjustments.  In April 2010, the
High Court of Justice set the limitation period for these class
actions at five years, as claimed by the banks, rather than twenty
years, as sought by the claimants, which will significantly reduce
the number of actions of this kind brought and the amounts claimed
in this connection.  As regards the substance of the matter, the
decisions issued to date have been adverse for the banks, although
two proceedings have been brought at the High Court of Justice and
the Supreme Federal Court with which the matter is expected to be
definitively settled.  In August 2010, the High Court of Justice
handed down a decision finding for the plaintiffs in terms of
substance, but excluding one of the "planos" from the claim,
thereby reducing the claimed amount, and confirming the five-year
statute of limitations period for these class actions at civil
law.  Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Federal Court issued an
injunctive relief order whereby all the proceedings in progress in
this connection were stayed until this court issues a final
decision on the matter.  Consequently, enforcement of the decision
handed down by the High Court of Justice was also stayed.

The Company expects that a judgment will be handed down this year;
however, this is still pending and there are no hearings scheduled
at the moment.

Banco Santander, S.A. -- http://www.santander.com/-- is a
financial group operating principally in Spain, the United
Kingdom, other European countries, Brazil and other Latin American
countries and the United States of America.  The Madrid, Spain-
based Company offers a wide range of financial products.


C.R. BARD: Trial in Hernia Product Claims MDL to Begin in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial dates have been scheduled in the multidistrict litigation
related to Hernia Product Claims beginning in July 2013, according
to C. R. Bard, Inc.'s April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

As of April 18, 2013, approximately 890 federal and 720 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,740
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and three putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, are currently pending against the Company with respect
to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair
implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").  One
of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-
filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class actions,
none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring;
(ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.  A
class certification hearing in one of the Canadian class actions
is scheduled to take place in May 2013.  Approximately 695 of the
state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 785
plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The Company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the Company in the MDL proceeding.  On June 30, 2011, the Company
announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various
plaintiffs' law firms to settle the majority of its existing
Hernia Product Claims.  Each agreement is subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs.
In addition, the Company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation.  Additional trials are scheduled in the third quarter
of 2013 and throughout the remainder of 2013.  Based on these
events, the Company recorded a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6
million after tax) in the second quarter of 2011, which recognized
the estimated costs of settling all Hernia Product Claims,
including asserted and unasserted claims, and costs to administer
the settlements.  The charge excludes any costs associated with
pending putative class action lawsuits.  The Company cannot give
any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to the
Hernia Product Claims will not exceed the amount of the charge
together with amounts previously accrued.  The Company cannot give
any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims
that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims
and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of April 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 3,060 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the Company's surgical continence products for
women, including its Avaulta(R) line of products.  In addition,
five putative class actions in the United States and one putative
class action in Canada have been filed against the Company (all
lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims").  The
Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  With respect to certain of these claims, the
Company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to
defend and indemnify the Company.  In October 2010, the JPML
transferred the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely
Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide into an
MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.  In
February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia to include lawsuits involving all
women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or
distributed by the Company.  In total, approximately 2,545 of the
Women's Health Product Claims are pending in federal courts and
have been or will be transferred to the MDL in West Virginia, with
the remainder of the Women's Health Product Claims in other
jurisdictions.  Trial dates have been scheduled in the MDL
beginning in July 2013 and are scheduled to continue throughout
2013.  Additional trials are also scheduled in state courts in the
second half of 2013.  The first trial in one of these other
jurisdictions was completed in July 2012 and resulted in a
judgment against the Company of approximately $3.6 million.  The
Company has appealed this decision.  The Company does not believe
that this verdict is representative of the potential outcomes of
other Women's Health Product Claims.  While the Company intends to
vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot
give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of April 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs are currently
pending against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, three
putative class actions have been filed against the Company in
various state courts on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to
have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").  The putative class actions, none of which has
been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive
damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(iv) attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing in one of the
class actions is scheduled to take place in June 2013.  The first
Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted
in a judgment for the Company based on the finding that the
Company was not liable for the plaintiff's damages.  The Company
expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place
over the next 12 months.  The Company has reached an agreement
with a law firm that has more than 30 Filter Product Claims
pending against the Company.  The Company is in the process of
finalizing these agreements with respect to such claims, and
payments are expected to be made during the second quarter of 2013
within the amounts previously recorded.  While the Company intends
to vigorously defend the remaining unsettled Filter Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health
Product Claims and the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims,
plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from
allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to
obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury.  In
many of these cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed
complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical
conditions, and consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the
claims.  The Company expects that it will receive and review
additional information regarding the remaining unsettled Hernia
Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims, the remaining
unsettled Filter Product Claims and related matters as these cases
progress.

The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers.
In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims.  When this occurs, the
Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is
probable.  Amounts recovered under the Company's product liability
insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and
may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to
claims.  In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay
claims or that coverage will otherwise be available.

The Company's insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia
Product Claims has been depleted.  In connection with the Hernia
Product Claims, the Company was in dispute with one of its excess
insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of
insurance coverage.  On March 27, 2013, an arbitration panel
issued its opinion denying the Company's claim for this insurance
coverage.  As a result, the Company recorded a non-cash charge of
$25.0 million ($24.5 million after tax) to other (income) expense,
net, for the write-down of a related insurance receivable.

In connection with the Women's Health Product Claims, the Company
is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating
to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage.

Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C.
R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical,
surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The
Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Facing 2 Suits re Natural Gas Markets
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to face two remaining lawsuits
related to its operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-2002,
according to the Company's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI Energy Inc, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allege
violations of state and federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of
relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages
(in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.

CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since been released or
dismissed from all but two of such cases. CenterPoint Energy
Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a defendant
in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a
conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.

In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims against other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant period, based
on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
The other defendants may seek rehearing en banc before the Ninth
Circuit or seek further review by filing a writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court. In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal. In December 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the
United States. On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court asked for a
reply brief.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not expect
the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 2 Natural Gas Mismeasurement Lawsuits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245 pipeline
companies and their affiliates pending in state court in Stevens
County, Kansas, according to the Company's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times),
the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who
allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.  The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July
2003 in response to an order from the judge denying certification
of the plaintiffs' alleged class. In the amendment, the plaintiffs
dismissed their claims against certain defendants (including two
CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the class of
plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated previously
asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the Btu content of the
gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along
with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and
fees.

In September 2009, the district court in Stevens County, Kansas,
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification of their case
and, in March 2010, denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of that order.  The district court subsequently
signed an order dismissing without prejudice certain defendants
from both lawsuits, including the remaining CenterPoint Energy
defendants.


EDAC TECHNOLOGIES: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDAC Technologies Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On March 18, 2013, EDAC Technologies Corporation and Greenbriar
Equity Group LLC (together with GB Aero Engine LLC, "Greenbriar")
announced that the Company and Greenbriar had entered into a
definitive merger agreement ("Merger Agreement") pursuant to which
Greenbriar would acquire EDAC by a tender offer made by
Greenbriar's wholly-owned subsidiary, GB Aero Engine Merger Sub
Inc. ("Merger Sub"), for $17.75 per share of common stock (the
"Tender Offer"), followed by a second-step merger of Merger Sub
with and into EDAC, with EDAC as the surviving corporation in such
merger (the "Merger" and together with the Tender Offer and the
other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including
but not limited to the Top-Up Option (as defined in the Merger
Agreement), collectively, the "Proposed Transaction");

The Tender Offer was initially scheduled to expire at 12:00
midnight, New York City time on Tuesday, April 23, 2013.

On March 20, 2013, an EDAC shareholder, Richard Cook, filed a
putative class action lawsuit challenging the Proposed Transaction
on behalf of the public shareholders of EDAC in the Superior Court
of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford (the
"Connecticut Court"), against EDAC, certain officers and directors
of EDAC (the "Individual Defendants"), Greenbriar, and Merger Sub
titled Cook v. EDAC Techs. Corp. et al., Case No. HHD-CV-13-
6040269S.

On March 21, 2013, an EDAC shareholder, Mark Crump, filed a
substantially similar putative class action lawsuit in the
Connecticut Court, against Greenbriar Equity Fund, II L.P.,
Greenbriar Equity Fund, II-A, L.P., Greenbriar Co-Investment
Partners II, L.P., (collectively the "Greenbriar Crump
Defendants"), EDAC, the Individual Defendants, Greenbriar, and
Merger Sub (collectively and with the Greenbriar Crump Defendants,
the "Defendants") titled Crump v. EDAC Techs. Corp. et al., Case
No. HHD-CV-13-6040430S.

On March 22, 2013, two EDAC shareholders, Charles Friedman and Len
Grossberg (the "Wisconsin Plaintiffs"), filed a substantially
similar putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the
State of Wisconsin, Dane County (the "Wisconsin Court"), against
EDAC, the Individual Defendants, Greenbriar, and Merger Sub Inc.
titled Friedman v. EDAC Techs. Corp. et al., Case No. 13-CV-1017
(the "Wisconsin Action").

On March 26, 2013, two EDAC shareholders, Edward Walsh and Marilyn
Walsh, filed a substantially similar putative class action lawsuit
in the Connecticut Court, against EDAC, the Individual Defendants,
Greenbriar, and Merger Sub titled Walsh v. EDAC Techs. Corp. et
al., Case No. HHD-CV-13-6040425S.

On March 26, 2013, the Company filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") concerning the Proposed Transaction (as
amended, the "14D-9").

On March 29, 2013, an EDAC shareholder, Phillip Randle (and with
Plaintiffs Cook, Walsh, and Crump, the "Connecticut Plaintiffs"
and together with the Wisconsin Plaintiffs, the "Plaintiffs"),
filed a substantially similar putative class action lawsuit in the
Connecticut Court, against EDAC, the Individual Defendants,
Greenbriar, and Merger Sub titled Randle v. EDAC Techs. Corp. et
al., Case No. HHD-CV-13-6040679S (with Cook, Case No. HHD-CV-13-
6040269S, Walsh, Case No. HHD-CV-13-6040425S, and Crump, Case No.
HHD-CV-13-6040430S, collectively, the "Connecticut Actions," and
with the Wisconsin Action, collectively, the "Actions").

The Defendants have been served in the Actions, and, with the
exception of objections to service of process, retain all of their
rights, objections and defenses in response to the Actions,
including objections to personal jurisdiction.  On March 28, 2013,
the Board of Directors of EDAC (the "Company Board") received an
unsolicited joint non-binding acquisition proposal from MidOcean
Associates SPC ("MidOcean") and Public Sector Pension Investment
Board ("PSP") to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of EDAC for $18.25 per share.  Following the Company Board's
receipt of such acquisition proposal from MidOcean and PSP, EDAC
provided a draft confidentiality agreement to MidOcean and PSP.

MidOcean and PSP subsequently distributed a revised draft of the
confidentiality agreement to EDAC, which included, among other
changes, a new provision requiring EDAC, under certain
circumstances, to reimburse MidOcean and PSP for up to $1.5
million of expenses incurred in connection with evaluating and
negotiating the proposed transaction with EDAC.  EDAC informed
MidOcean and PSP that EDAC would not agree to include an expense
reimbursement provision in the confidentiality agreement; MidOcean
and PSP subsequently reduced their request for expense
reimbursement to an amount up to $1 million on the same terms; and
EDAC informed MidOcean and PSP again that EDAC would not agree to
include an expense reimbursement provision in the confidentiality
agreement.  On April 7, 2013, MidOcean and PSP withdrew their
acquisition proposal (such withdrawal, together with the
acquisition proposal of MidOcean and PSP and the matters regarding
the confidentiality agreement and expense reimbursement request,
collectively the "MidOcean/PSP Proposal Matters").

On April 2, 2013, the Wisconsin Plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint in the Wisconsin Action (the "Amended Wisconsin
Complaint").  On April 4, 2013, in conjunction with informing the
Defendants that they would shortly thereafter be filing a
consolidated and amended complaint, counsel for the Connecticut
Plaintiffs provided counsel for the Defendants with requests for
production of documents.  On April 5, 2013, the Wisconsin
Plaintiffs submitted to the Wisconsin Court a notice of motion to
enjoin the Proposed Transaction and to expedite proceedings.  On
April 8, 2013, Plaintiff Cook filed an amended class action
complaint in Cook, Case No. HHD-CV-13-6040269S (the "Amended
Connecticut Complaint").  On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff Cook filed a
Motion for Expedited Discovery and Setting a Briefing and Hearing
Schedule on Plaintiff's Anticipated Motion for Temporary
Injunction.

On April 10, 2013, the Wisconsin Plaintiffs agreed to coordinate
with and participate in the Connecticut Actions.  On April 10,
2013, the parties conferred with respect to, inter alia, the
Connecticut Plaintiffs' requests for production of documents; the
Wisconsin Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the Proposed Transaction
and to expedite proceedings; and Plaintiff Cook's Motion for
Expedited Discovery and Setting a Briefing and Hearing Schedule on
Plaintiff's Anticipated Motion for Temporary Injunction; and
Defendants agreed to the production of certain documents and to
make available two witnesses for deposition.

The parties engaged in expedited discovery between April 10 and
April 18, 2013, including the production of certain non-public
documents concerning, inter alia, the process leading up to the
Proposed Transaction and the valuation of the Company, including
Company Board minutes, Company Board presentation materials and
the financial analyses of the Company's financial advisor, Stifel
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated ("Stifel").  On April 12, 2013,
the Wisconsin Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Wisconsin Court
withdrawing their notice of motion to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction and to expedite proceedings.  On April 16, 2013,
Plaintiffs' counsel conducted the deposition of Michael Carr,
Director, Stifel.  On April 18, 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel
conducted the deposition of Daniel Tracy, Chairman of the Board of
Directors of EDAC.  On April 19, 2013, having reviewed the
documents produced by the Defendants as well as the 14D-9 and
other public filings and publicly available materials, and in
consultation with a financial expert, Plaintiffs' counsel made a
written settlement demand on the Defendants.

On April 19, 2013, counsel for all parties to the Actions began
engaging in arm's length negotiations concerning a possible
resolution of the Actions.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the
Actions and counsel for Defendants in the Actions have engaged in
extensive arm's-length negotiations concerning a possible
settlement of the Actions.  Counsel for all parties to the Actions
have reached an agreement in principle, set forth in this
Memorandum, providing for the settlement of the Actions between
and among Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative
Class, and Defendants, on the terms and subject to the conditions
(the "Settlement").  The Defendants have consented to the
conditional certification of the Connecticut Actions as a class
action pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book SectionSection 9-7,
9-8 and 9-9 for settlement purposes only.  The Plaintiffs and
their counsel have taken into consideration the strengths and
weaknesses of the Plaintiffs' claim and have determined that a
settlement of the Actions on the terms set forth in this
Memorandum is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Plaintiffs and the putative Class, confers a
substantial benefit upon them, and that it is reasonable to pursue
a settlement of the Actions based upon the procedures outlined
herein and the benefits and protections offered herein.  Entry
into the Memorandum by Plaintiffs is not an admission as to the
lack of any merit of any of the claims asserted in the Actions.

The Defendants, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made in the Actions, or any liability
with respect thereto, have concluded that it is desirable that the
claims against them be settled and dismissed on the terms set
forth in the Memorandum.

As a result of the negotiations between and among the parties, it
is agreed that, in consideration of the full settlement and
release of the Settled Claims, EDAC will provide additional
disclosures set forth in an amendment to EDAC's 14D-9 filed with
the SEC on April 25, 2013.  Without admitting any wrongdoing,
Defendants acknowledge that the filing and prosecution of the
Actions and discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel were the sole
cause for the Disclosures.

EDAC Technologies Corporation -- http://www.edactechnologies.com/
-- provides design, manufacture and service meeting the precision
requirements for customers in the tooling, fixtures, molds, jet
engine components and machine spindles.  The wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Cheshire, Connecticut-based company include
Gros-Ite Industries and Apex Machine Tool Company, Inc.


EDISON MISSION: Suit v. Midwest Stayed Due to Chapter 11 Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss nuisance complaints filed against Midwest
Generation LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Edison Mission
Energy, are stayed as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, according
to the Edison's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation in Illinois state court by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence,
trespass, and strict liability.

The plaintiffs seek to have their suits certified as a class
action and request injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and
punitive damages. The complaints are similar to two complaints
previously filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, which were dismissed in October
2011 for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Midwest Generation's motions to dismiss the cases were denied in
August 2012, following which the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints alleging substantially similar claims and requesting
similar relief. Midwest Generation has filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaints, and these complaints are stayed as a
result of the Chapter 11 Cases.


EDISON MISSION: State Law Environmental Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Following the 2011 dismissal of an environmental suit filed
against Edison Mission Energy, EME said it does not know whether
the plaintiffs will file a complaint in state court, according to
the Company's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against
Homer City, the sale leaseback owner participants of the Homer
City plant, two prior owners of the Homer City plant, EME, and
EIX, claiming that emissions from the Homer City plant had
adversely affected their health and property values.

The plaintiffs sought to have their suit certified as a class
action and requested injunctive relief, the funding of a health
assessment study and medical monitoring, as well as compensatory
and punitive damages.

In October 2011, the claims in the purported class action lawsuit
that were based on the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) were dismissed
with prejudice, while state law statutory and common law claims
were dismissed without prejudice to re-file in state court should
the plaintiffs choose to do so. EME does not know whether the
plaintiffs will file a complaint in state court.


FERRO CORP: Faces Suits Over A. Schulman's Acquisition Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation is facing shareholder class action lawsuits
arising from A. Schulman, Inc.'s proposal to acquire all of the
Company's outstanding shares, according to the Company's
April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 29, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas (Turberg v. Lawrence
et al., No. 13-CV-803886), and on April 9, 2013, a purported
shareholder of the Company filed a substantially similar putative
shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Raul v.
Hipple et al., No. 1:13-cv-00783).  Both complaints assert claims
on behalf of the Company and the Company's common shareholders and
allege, among other things, that members of the Company's current
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties.  The
complaints relate generally to the proposal by A. Schulman, Inc.
publicized on March 4, 2013, to acquire all outstanding common
shares of the Company and the Board's response to that proposal.
Both actions seek a declaration that the Board violated its
fiduciary duties, an injunction against the Board initiating
defensive measures to prevent an acquisition, other declaratory
and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.

The defendant directors believe the allegations against them lack
merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  Because these
proceedings are at the preliminary stages of litigation, their
outcome cannot be predicted at this time.

Ferro Corporation produces specialty materials and chemicals for a
range of manufacturers worldwide.  The Company is based in
Mayfield Heights, Ohio.


GULF STREAM: Recalls 5 CONQUEST and ULTRA SUPREME Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 20, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorhome
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Electrical
Units affected:             5
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013168
TC ID number:               2013168

Advisory details

On certain motorhomes, the 110V AC electrical wiring for the
microwave may not have been secured adequately within the
refrigerator cabinet during vehicle assembly.  As a result, the
wiring could chafe against the back of the refrigerator which,
over time, could cause abrasion damage to the cable insulation,
possibly resulting in an electrical short circuit. An electrical
short could result in a vehicle fire causing property damage
and/or personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will secure and, if
needed, repair the electrical wiring.  Refrigerator coolant tubes
will also be inspect and repaired as required.

Affected products

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make          Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----          ----------------------
   GULF STREAM   ULTRA SUPREME          2001
   GULF STREAM   CONQUEST               2001


HANOVER INSURANCE: Not Opposed to "Durand" Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit lodged by a former employee of The Hanover
Insurance Group, Inc. against the company filed their Motion for
Class Certification and the Company did not oppose the
certification of a class, according to the Company's May 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company understated the
accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff claims that the
Plan understated her distributions and those of similarly situated
participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw"
amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future
interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to
each participant's retirement age of 65 discounted by applicable
IRS rates.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010.

In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation of
lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included:

     (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants'
account balances and lump sum payments properly because interest
credits were based solely upon the performance of each
participant's selection from among various hypothetical investment
options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater
of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate;

     (b) a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed
interest crediting for all participants from the performance of
participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate,
reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for participants who had account
balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide
them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and

     (c) claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty
and ERISA notice requirements arising from the various interest
crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which Plaintiffs
complain. The District Court granted the Company's Motion to
Dismiss the additional claims on statute of limitations grounds by
a Memorandum Opinion dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims
substantially as set forth in the original March 12, 2007
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the District
Court's decision to dismiss the additional claims, which was
denied with respect to the claims set forth in (a) and (b);
however, the Court did allow the fiduciary duty claim regarding
plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim to stand.

On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment to dismiss the claims of one of the plaintiffs
who received his lump sum distribution after December 31, 2003, on
the basis that certain amendments to the Plan effective January 1,
2004 eliminated any basis for payment of an additional "whipsaw"
amount to participants who received lump sum distributions after
December 31, 2003.

On December 13, 2012, the Court held this motion in abeyance
pending a ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on January
14, 2013. On February 8, 2013, the Company and the Plan informed
the Court that they did not oppose the certification of a class.


HEADWATERS INC: Awaits Ruling in Davidson, Adtech Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit held oral arguments in March 2013 in a case brought
against Headwaters Inc. over a synthetic fuel technology invented
by James G. Davidson, according to the Company's May 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement
with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction
transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters
related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson.

In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other
things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent
infringement and interference with contract arising out of the
1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson
and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other.

All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial
proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust.

The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially
all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of
$43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

In June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of
$8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion
of the class members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict
after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the
amount of $7.3 million.

In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a constructive
trust in the amount of approximately $16.0 million (the same
amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), denied all other
outstanding motions, and entered judgment against Headwaters in
the total approximate amount of $16.0 million, in accordance with
the verdicts and order on constructive trust. The court denied all
post-judgment motions by the parties.

Headwaters filed a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from
the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. Plaintiffs also filed notice of an appeal. The Federal
Circuit transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit on the basis of jurisdiction. A panel of the
Sixth Circuit held oral arguments in March 2013 but no decision
has been announced. Because the resolution of the litigation is
uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion
as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters' liability.


HEADWATERS INC: Archstone Pursues Last Claim v. Eldorado
--------------------------------------------------------
Apartment owner Archstone, which brought a case against Eldorado
Stone LLC, a subsidiary of Headwaters Inc., is seeking a review of
its last remaining claim against the company, according to
Headwaters' May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the 21 apartment buildings.

Also in 2008, Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County
Supreme Court of the State of New York against the prime
contractor and its performance bond surety, the designer, and
Eldorado Stone, LLC, which supplied architectural stone that was
installed by others during construction.

The prime contractor then sued over a dozen subcontractors who in
turn sued others. Most parties filed cross-claims for contribution
and indemnity against Eldorado Stone and others.

Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million in repair
costs, $19.0 million in lost lease payments and rent abatement,
$7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and $7.0 million
for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment interest and
attorney's fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and
tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying for the defense
of the case.

Eldorado Stone sought summary judgment on three of Archstone's
four claims. After an interlocutory appeal, the three claims were
dismissed. Archstone is seeking further review. The remaining
Archstone claim of common law indemnification applies to damages
paid to the tenants and associated attorney's fees. Meanwhile,
discovery is underway.

Because the resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel
and management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely
outcome of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any,
or the insurers' obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against
loss, if any.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Overturns Inkjet Printer Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed,
vacated, and remanded for further proceedings, orders of the
district court in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: HP INKJET PRINTER
LITIGATION, NICKLOS CIOLINO, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated; DANIEL FEDER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
THEODORE H. FRANK; KIMBERLY SCHRATWIESER, Objectors-Appellants, v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, No. 11-16097.

Objectors Kimberly Schratwieser and Theodore Frank appealed
district court orders granting final approval to a class action
settlement between Hewlett-Packard Company and a nationwide class
of consumers who purchased certain HP inkjet printers between
September 6, 2001 and September 1, 2010.  The district court
approved a settlement that provides both coupon and injunctive
relief to the class members.  The district court also approved an
award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,500,000 and costs in
the amount of $596,990.70.

Objectors argued that the settlement is neither fair, reasonable,
nor adequate, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2) and Section 3 of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
codified at Section 28 U.S.C. 1712(e).  Objectors contended that
the settlement is the product of tacit collusion between class
counsel and HP.  Objectors also challenged the fee award, arguing
it too violates CAFA, and specifically Section 1712(a)-(c), which
govern the calculation of attorneys' fees in class action cases
containing a coupon component.

The Ninth Circuit held that under Section 1712 of CAFA, a district
court may not award attorneys' fees to class counsel that are
"attributable to" an award of coupons without first considering
the redemption value of the coupons.  A district court may,
however, award lodestar fees to compensate class counsel for any
non-coupon relief they obtain, such as injunctive relief.

"Because we agree that the fees award violates CAFA, we do not
address any of Objectors' other contentions.  When a settlement
provides for coupon relief, either in whole or in part, any
attorney's fee "that is attributable to the award of coupons" must
be calculated using the redemption value of the coupons. Section
1712(a). Since the district court awarded fees that were
"attributable to" the coupon relief, but failed to first calculate
the redemption value of those coupons, we reverse the orders of
the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion," says the Ninth Circuit ruling.

However, Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon dissented saying she
disagrees with the majority's analysis of the fee award's
compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1712, the coupon settlement
provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Judge Berzon held that "the district court proceeded exactly as
required by our class action settlement case law and as permitted
by Section 1712: It did not award a contingency fee, calculated as
a percentage of the purported value of the total class recovery.
Instead, it chose to award a lodestar fee, calculated on the basis
of hours worked and rates charged, carefully limited by a fair
estimate of the amount of the benefit received by the class. There
was no violation of Section 1712 of CAFA."

Theodore H. Frank, Esq. -- tedfrank@gmail.com -- of the Center for
Class Action Fairness LLC, in Washington, D.C., represented the
Objectors-Appellants.

Niall P. McCarthy, Esq. -- nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- Justin T.
Berger, Esq. -- jberger@cpmlegal.com -- and Eric J. Beuscher, Esq.
-- ebuescher@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP,
in Burlingame, California; Steven N. Berk, Esq. --
steven@berklawdc.com -- of Berk Law PLLC, in Washington, D.C.,
represented the Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Peter Sullivan, Esq. -- psullivan@gibsondunn.com -- Samuel G.
Liversidge, Esq. -- sliversidge@gibsondunn.com -- and Christopher
Chorba, Esq. -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com --  of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, in Los Angeles, California represented the
Defendant-Appellee.

The case was before Ninth Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, Marsha
S. Berzon, and Milan D. Smith, Jr.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 15, 2013 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/IdSasHfrom Leagle.com.


INSOLROLL WINDOW: Recalls 1,500 Roller Shades With Solar Motors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Insolroll Window Shading Systems, of Louisville, Colorado,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Insolroll Solar
Powered and Rechargeable Motor Roller Shades.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The motor of these roller shades has a built-in lithium battery
that can overheat while being charged, posing a fire risk.

Insolroll has received one report of the motor on the shade
overheating and creating a fire.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Insolroll roller shades available with a solar
powered motor (model #IN-SOL-R) or rechargeable motor (model #IN-
RCG-R).  The model numbers are printed on the body of the motor
located inside the roller tube.  These rechargeable motors on
Insolroll interior solar screen and blackout shades have built-in
lithium ion batteries that are used with a solar panel charger or
plug-in charger.  The 18-inch width by 1-5/16-inch high solar
panel charger is white on the interior side and black toward the
exterior.  The plug-in charger is black and measures about 3-
inches high by 1-5/8 inch wide by 1-1/16 inch deep with a 13-foot
cord.  The motors raise and lower the shades controlled by a hand-
held remote control or surface-mounted wall switch.  The
manufacturer's name is printed on a sticker on the roller tube
that can be seen by taking down the shade and removing the fabric
completely.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/vJ16pb

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Insolroll independent window covering
installer retailers nationwide from June 2012 through March 2013
for between $400 and $700 per window shade.

Consumers should immediately unplug the solar panel charger or
unplug the plug-in charger and contact your Insolroll dealer to
receive a free replacement motor and installation instructions.
If dealer unknown, contact Insolroll for a list of dealers.
Insolroll may be reached at (800) 447-5534 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.Insolroll.com/and click the Product Recall button for
more information.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sued for "Unfair Business Practice"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings faces a suit over
alleged unlawful and unfair business practices that resulted to
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts.

According to the Company's May 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013, the Company on June 7, 2012, was served with a
putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants committed unlawful and
unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws
by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test
orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-
payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's
fees, and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Handling of DNA
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings faces a suit over
alleged breach of written agreement in relation to preservation of
client's DNA samples.

According to the Company's May 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013, the Company on June 7, 2012, was served with a
putative class action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme
Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to
preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to the defendants and
thereby breached a written agreement with plaintiff and violated
state laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double
and treble damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and
legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sued Over "Unsolicited" Fax Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings faces a suit over
alleged violation of federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to the Company's May 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The
lawsuit seeks actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each
violation, whichever is greater, and injunctive relief. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Various Collections of Youth Beds
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            May 21, 2013
Posting date:             May 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-29293

Joint recall with Lea Industries, Health Canada and the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission (US CPSC).

Affected products: Lea Industries youth beds

This recall involves the side rails on 34 collections (91
SKUs/item numbers) of youth beds sold by Lea Industries since
2008.  They were manufactured in Vietnam and China and are marked
accordingly.  One of the side rails has a label on the inside with
a seven-character purchase order number and a six-digit item
number.  With the exception of platform beds manufactured since
2010, side rails with purchase order numbers between IM92784 and
IM94038 inclusive, that also have the item numbers with six digits
from the table below, are included in this recall.

Item numbers to be recalled

   Item number   Bed collection name
   -----------   -------------------
   012-023       Haley
   012-024       Haley
   060-099       Sponge Bob Surf Club
   060-975       Sponge Bob Surf Club
   070-099       Lea Elite Zoe
   085-076       Home Town
   134-099       Lea Elite Boutique
   139-076       Lea Elite Logan Country
   139-099       Lea Elite Logan Country
   145-076       Lea Elite Covington
   145-099       Lea Elite Covington
   147-076       Lea Elite Hannah
   147-099       Lea Elite Hannah
   148-076       Lea Elite Retreat
   148-097       Lea Elite Retreat
   148-099       Lea Elite Retreat
   149-076       Lea Elite Retreat
   149-097       Lea Elite Retreat
   149-099       Lea Elite Retreat
   207-963C      Bunks and Lofts
   207-963W      Bunks and Lofts
   207-965C      Bunks and Lofts
   207-965W      Bunks and Lofts
   228-091       Jessica McClintock - Cherry
   228-094       Jessica McClintock - Cherry
   228-097       Jessica McClintock - Cherry
   237-076       Americana
   237-097       Americana
   237-099       Americana
   302-076       Jackson Creek
   302-09C       Jackson Creek
   342-064N      My Place - Maple
   342-076N      My Place - Maple
   505-09L       Elation
   590-076       My Style
   590-076B      My Style
   590-076C      My Style
   590-076M      My Style
   590-076W      My Style
   590-088B      My Style
   590-088C      My Style
   590-088M      My Style
   590-088W      My Style
   606-091       Emma's Treasures
   618-076       Austin
   618-975       Austin
   625-076       Deer Run
   711-076       Freetime
   711-091       Freetime
   711-097       Freetime
   816-076       Lea Elite Classics
   816-091       Lea Elite Classics
   816-094       Lea Elite Classics
   816-097       Lea Elite Classics
   816-975       Lea Elite Classics
   826-076       Lea Elite Crossover
   826-091       Lea Elite Crossover
   826-094       Lea Elite Crossover
   826-097       Lea Elite Crossover
   826-975       Lea Elite Crossover
   846-091       Lea Elite Rhapsody
   846-094       Lea Elite Rhapsody
   846-097       Lea Elite Rhapsody
   856-076       Lea Elite Expresssions
   856-091       Lea Elite Expresssions
   856-094       Lea Elite Expresssions
   856-097       Lea Elite Expresssions
   856-923       Lea Elite Expresssions
   856-954       Lea Elite Expresssions
   876-076       Lea Elite Reflections
   876-091       Lea Elite Reflections
   876-094       Lea Elite Reflections
   876-097       Lea Elite Reflections
   876-923       Lea Elite Reflections
   876-924       Lea Elite Reflections
   906-076       Dillon
   906-975       Dillon
   917-024       Midtown
   950-099       Nick and Funtime
   950-939       Nick and Funtime
   960-097       Tweennick
   960-099       Tweennick
   960-923       Tweennick
   960-924       Tweennick
   970-091       Teennick
   970-094       Teennick

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/2BFItf

The side rail can break, especially when a sharp downward force is
applied to the top of the bed.  If the side rail breaks, the
mattress and slat pack become unstable and could fall.

Health Canada and Lea Industries have been made aware of one
incident in Canada in which the side rail fell but there was no
injury.

The US CPSC is aware of twenty-two incidents with two injuries.

Number sold: Approximately 4237 affected beds were sold in Canada
at various retailers.  Approximately 59,188 affected beds were
sold in the United States at various retailers.

The affected product was sold in Canada from August 2008 until
March 2013.  The affected product was sold in the United States
from August 2008 until March 2013.

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam or China.

Companies:

Manufacturer: Kaiser Furniture (Vietnam) Joint Stock Co.
              Ben Cat District
              VIET NAM

Manufacturer: Maeve Furn Co. Ltd.
              Thaun An District
              VIET NAM

Manufacturer: Shingmark Enterprises Co., Ltd.
              Trang Bom District
              VIET NAM

Manufacturer: Carven Industries Ltd. (HK)
              Tung-Kuan City
              CHINA

Distributor:  Lea Industries
              High Point
              North Carolina
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the beds.  Consumers should lift up
the mattress and write down the purchase order and item numbers
listed on the label on the inside of one of the rails.  They
should input these numbers on the Company's Web site (under the
Recall Tab at the bottom of the page) to verify if they have
affected side rails.  If they do, they will be prompted to
register for the recall.  Lea Industries will ship them free
replacement side rails along with instructions on how to install
them.


LL BAKERY: Recalls Enriched White Bread and Italian Cream Danish
----------------------------------------------------------------
LL Bakery Inc. of Torrance, California, is recalling all White
Farm Enriched White Bread, Butter Farm Enriched White Bread, and
Italian Cream Danish because product labels fail to declare the
allergen "milk", in the whey powder listed in their ingredient
statements.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk run the risk of a life threatening allergic reaction,
anaphylaxis, that requires immediate medical attention should they
consume these products.

LL Bakery Inc. immediately segregated its entire inventory of
White Farm Enriched White Bread, Butter Farm Enriched White Bread,
and Italian Cream Danish.  They are notifying and warning
consumers and customers not to consume them.

White Farm Enriched White Bread is a 16 oz. loaf with square
shaped slices.  The label is white with blue and green lettering,
and red design accents.  The LL Bakery Logo is on the bottom left
corner.

Butter Farm Enriched White Bread is a 16 oz. loaf with square
shaped slices.  The label is white with brown and green lettering,
and red design accents.  The LL Bakery Logo is on the bottom left
corner.

Italian Cream Danish pastry is braided and has yellow creamy
swirls and sliced almonds.  The label is white with black
lettering and a tan colored border.  The LL Bakery Logo is on the
bottom left corner.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm353492.htm

LL Bakery Inc. wants to ensure its products are safe.
Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the
California Department of Public Health, LL Bakery Inc. is
voluntarily recalling all White Farm Enriched White Bread, Butter
Farm Enriched White Bread, and Italian Cream Danish from all of
its customers.  Consumers in possession of these products should
not eat them, rather products should be returned to the place of
purchase.

LL Bakery Inc. will be sending recall notices to all of its direct
customers.  Please call Kiyo Kamiyama at 310-516-1918 for further
information.


LORILLARD INC: Appeal in Indirect Purchaser Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of an indirect purchaser class action
lawsuit in Kansas remains pending, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s
April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Approximately 30 antitrust lawsuits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on
behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state courts
against cigarette manufacturers.  The lawsuits all alleged that
the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices
of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit
indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under
price fixing or consumer fraud statutes.  More than 20 states
permit such lawsuits.  Lorillard Tobacco Company was a defendant
in all but one of these indirect purchaser cases.  Lorillard, Inc.
was not named as a defendant in any of these cases.  Four indirect
purchaser lawsuits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan,
thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states.  The actions
in all other states, except for Kansas, were either voluntarily
dismissed or dismissed by the courts.

In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified
a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002.  In July 2006, the
Court issued an order confirming that fact discovery was closed,
with the exception of privilege issues that the Court determined,
based on a Special Master's report, justified further fact
discovery.  In October 2007, the Court denied all of the
defendants' privilege claims, and the Kansas Supreme Court
thereafter denied a petition seeking to overturn that ruling.  On
March 23, 2012, The District Court of Seward County granted the
defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas
lawsuit.  The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.
On July 18, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Court of Appeals for the State of Kansas.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  The Company's principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in
the United States of America.  The Company is based in Greensboro,
North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Flight Attendant Suits vs. Unit Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s The Company's principal operating subsidiary,
Lorillard Tobacco Company, and three other cigarette manufacturers
are the defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases.  These
lawsuits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the
parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf
of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke.  The settlement agreement, among
other things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these
individual lawsuits.  These individuals may not seek punitive
damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997.  The
period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no
additional cases in this category may be filed.

The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried
have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit
Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The October 2000 order has
been construed by these judges as holding that the flight
attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability
elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and
breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages.  The court
further ruled that the trials of these lawsuits are to address
whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of
damages to be awarded.

Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight
Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned.  The
Defendants have prevailed in seven of the eight trials.  In one of
the seven cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal,
the case has been returned to the trial court for a second trial.
The six remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned
are concluded.  In the single trial decided for the plaintiff,
French v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded
$5.5 million in damages.  The court, however, reduced this award
to $500,000.  This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was
affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award.
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter,
including interest, was approximately $60,000.

As of April 22, 2013, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were
scheduled for trial.  Trial dates are subject to change.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  The Company's principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in
the United States of America.  The Company is based in Greensboro,
North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Loews Still Defends Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the separation of Lorillard, Inc. from Loews
Corporation, Lorillard entered into a separation agreement with
Loews (the "Separation Agreement") and agreed to indemnify Loews
and its officers, directors, employees and agents against all
costs and expenses arising out of third party claims (including,
without limitation, attorneys' fees, interest, penalties and costs
of investigation or preparation for defense), judgments, fines,
losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes, demands, assessments
and amounts paid in settlement based on, arising out of or
resulting from, among other things, Loews's ownership of or the
operation of Lorillard and its assets and properties, and its
operation or conduct of its businesses at any time prior to or
following the Separation (including with respect to any product
liability claims).

Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability cases,
each of which are purported Class Action Cases.  Pursuant to the
Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews for
the amount of any losses and any legal or other fees with respect
to such cases.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  The Company's principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in
the United States of America.  The Company is based in Greensboro,
North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Still Defends Tobacco Antitrust Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against a
tobacco-related antitrust class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company's principal operating subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco
Company, is a defendant in a tobacco-related antitrust case.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case.  In 2000 and
2001, a number of cases were brought against cigarette
manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that
defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation
of federal and state antitrust and unfair business practices
statutes.  The Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of
persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one
or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers.  All of the
other cases have been either successfully defended or voluntarily
dismissed.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  The Company's principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in
the United States of America.  The Company is based in Greensboro,
North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Lorillard, Inc. subsidiary continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit pending in West Virginia, according to the
Company's April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company's principal operating subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco
Company, but not Lorillard Inc. is a defendant in the one pending
Class Action Case, in which plaintiffs seek class certification on
behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of deceased
cigarette smokers, who reside in West Virginia.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have
defeated motions for class certification in a number of cases.
Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some
of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which neither
Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party.  In some of
these cases, courts have denied class certification to the
plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  The Company's principal
products are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent,
True, Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in
the United States of America.  The Company is based in Greensboro,
North Carolina.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: June 2013 Hearing Set in ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of statute
of limitations in a suit filed by former employees against
Marriott International, Inc. is scheduled for June 7, 2013,
according to the Company's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees filed a
putative class action complaint against us and the Stock Plan,
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (ERISA), that are in certain circumstances more
rapid than those set forth in the awards, various other purported
ERISA violations, and various breaches of contract in connection
with the awards.

The plaintiffs seek damages, class attorneys' fees and interest,
with no amounts specified. The action is proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt
Division) and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman are
the current named plaintiffs. The parties completed limited
discovery concerning the issues of statute of limitations and
class certification.

The company disclosed on its 10-Q filing: "We filed a motion for
summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations in
December 2012, and a hearing on both issues is scheduled for June
7, 2013. We and the Stock Plan have denied all liability, and
while we intend to vigorously defend against the claims being made
by the plaintiffs, we can give you no assurance about the outcome
of this lawsuit. We currently cannot estimate the range of any
possible loss to the Company because an amount of damages is not
claimed, there is uncertainty as to whether a class will be
certified and if so as to the size of the class, and the
possibility of our prevailing on our statute of limitations
defense may significantly limit any claims for damages."


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Still Awaits Order in "Silverman" Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is still awaiting court decisions in
connection with two appeals from approval of settlement in a
securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The operative amended complaint primarily alleges
that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning
Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of
2006.  The complaint also challenges Motorola's accounting and
disclosures for certain transactions entered into in the third
quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of
Motorola shares during the class period.  On August 25, 2009, the
district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case
for $200 million, $150 million of which is being paid by the
Company's insurance carriers.  The district court approved the
settlement agreement on May 9, 2012.  Two appeals have been filed
from the judgment entered pursuant to the settlement -- one
challenging the court's approval of certain terms of the
settlement, and the other challenging the fee award to the
attorneys for the class.  The court has heard the appeals but has
not issued a decision.

The Company is a defendant in other various lawsuits, claims and
investigations that arise in the normal course of business.  In
the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of the
Company's pending legal proceedings will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity or results of operations.  However, an unfavorable
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of
operations in the periods in which the matters are ultimately
resolved, or in the periods in which more information obtained
changes management's opinion of the ultimate disposition.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.motorolasolutions.com/--
is a provider of mission-critical communication infrastructure,
devices, software and services.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Awaits Decision in Fuel Surcharges MDL Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on
its appeal in the antitrust multidistrict litigation pending in
the District of Columbia, according to the Company's April 24,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the Company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a
class action.  The defendant railroads have appealed such
certification, and a decision by the court to either reject the
appeal outright or proceed with ruling on its merits is pending.
The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the cases.  The Company
does not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity.  A lawsuit containing similar allegations against
the Company and four other major railroads that was filed on March
25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008.

Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a
transportation company based in Norfolk, Virginia.  Norfolk
Southern operates an extensive intermodal network in the East and
is a major transporter of coal and industrial products.


NORSE ENERGY: Sued by Land Owners Over Force Majeure Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that 86 property owners filed a lawsuit in bankruptcy
court alleging that oil and gas leases on their 6,300 acres
terminated because Norse Energy Corp. USA failed to drill wells or
pay royalties.

In January 2011, the Company sent land owners a letter declaring a
so-called force majeure.  Norse said that the New York governor's
executive order in December 2010 putting a moratorium on hydraulic
fracturing entitled the Company to declare a force majeure, an
outside event beyond the Company's control that excuses the
failure of performance of a contract.

According to the report, the land owners want the bankruptcy court
to declare that force majeure is inapplicable and that the leases
all expired by their terms because Norse hasn't paid royalties and
didn't drill wells.

                       About Norse Energy

Norse Energy Corp. USA is the U.S. subsidiary of Norse Energy
Corp. ASA from Lysaker, Norway.  The Company is the holder of oil
and gas leases on 130,000 acres in central and western New York.
The Company is engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration
and production.


OMNICARE INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, Inc., three of
its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought
on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock
from August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all
purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public
offering in December 2005.  The complaint contained claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive
relief.  The Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially
inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial
statements) by engaging in improper generic drug substitution,
improper revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court
dismissed the case.  On November 9, 2007, the plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  However, the appellate court
reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to
the district court for further proceedings.  On July 14, 2011, the
district court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended
complaint.  This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare
common stock in the December 2005 public offering.  The new
complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained
false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with
particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal
Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of Omnicare's
acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers and
its provision of pharmacist consultant services.

On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012, the
district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the
docket.  On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Omnicare, Inc. -- a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, is a healthcare services company that
specializes in the management of complex pharmaceutical care.
Through its Long-Term Care Group segment, Omnicare is one of the
nation's largest providers of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy
and ancillary services to long-term care facilities as well as
chronic care facilities and other settings.


OMNICARE INC: Consolidated Kentucky Suit Dismissed in March
-----------------------------------------------------------
All claims in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in Kentucky was dismissed in March 2013, according to
Omnicare, Inc.'s April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al., was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007, through August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with alleged false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal
and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.

On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  The Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint.  Both complaints seek
unspecified money damages.  The Court has appointed lead counsel
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012.

On March 27, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Omnicare, Inc. -- a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, is a healthcare services company that
specializes in the management of complex pharmaceutical care.
Through its Long-Term Care Group segment, Omnicare is one of the
nation's largest providers of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy
and ancillary services to long-term care facilities as well as
chronic care facilities and other settings.


PANERA BREAD: Has Reserved $3.7 Million in Accrued Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 26, 2013, that it maintained a reserve of $3.7 million
in accrued expenses in connection with certain settled class
action lawsuits.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick
Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company.  The
lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Contra Costa.  On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add
another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff.  The
complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Business and Professions Code.  The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate.  On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported
class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed
by David Carter.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement,
the parties agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate
amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and costs of administering
the settlement.  The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of the settlement were
preliminarily approved by the Court on June 8, 2012.  On December
21, 2012, the Court approved the terms and conditions of the
settlement and the actual settlement payment amounts, and on
February 5, 2013, the Court approved plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Company maintained a reserve of $3.7 million in
accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as
of March 26, 2013, and December 25, 2012.

                         Carter Lawsuit

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David
Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company,
and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino.  The complaint alleged,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought, among other
relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate.  This matter, as it relates to the subsidiary, was
consolidated with the Sotoudeh lawsuit and was resolved under the
Memorandum of Agreement.

Panera Bread Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.  The Company's bakery-cafes
offer fresh baked goods, made-to-order sandwiches on freshly baked
breads, soups, salads, custom roasted coffees, and other
complementary products through on-premise sales, as well as
catering.  The Company also supplies fresh dough, produce, tuna,
cream cheese and indirectly supplies proprietary sweet goods items
through a contract manufacturing arrangement.


PG&E CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuit Over San Bruno Accident
-------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2013, approximately 160 lawsuits involving third-
party claims for personal injury and property damage, including
two class action lawsuits, had been filed against PG&E Corporation
and the Utility in connection with the San Bruno accident on
behalf of approximately 480 plaintiffs, according to the Company's
May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The lawsuits seek compensation for personal injury and property
damage, and other relief, including punitive damages.  The Utility
has entered into settlement agreements to resolve the claims of
approximately 140 plaintiffs and other claimants.  The Utility and
most of the remaining plaintiffs are engaged in settlement
discussions.

Since the San Bruno accident, the Utility has recorded cumulative
charges of $455 million through March 31, 2013 for estimated
third-party claims, including personal injury and property damage,
damage to infrastructure, and other damage claims.  The Utility
has made cumulative payments of $382 million for settlements of
these claims.

The Utility estimates it is reasonably possible that it may incur
as much as an additional $145 million for third-party claims, for
a total possible loss of $600 million since the San Bruno
accident.  This estimate is subject to change as more information
becomes known about the unresolved claims.  PG&E Corporation and
the Utility are unable to estimate the amount (or range of
amounts) of reasonably possible losses associated with punitive
damages, if any, related to these matters.


PG&E CORPORATION: Seeks Stay of Action Pending CPUC Probe
---------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility)
requested a stay in the proceeding of the suit alleging unfair
business practices until the investigations of the California
Public Utilities Commission are concluded.  The court has set a
hearing on the motion for May 23, 2013, according to the Company's
May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility (and other
unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek certification of a
class consisting of all California residents who were customers of
the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions.

The plaintiffs allege that the Utility collected more than $100
million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose
of various safety measures and operations projects but instead
used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive
compensation and bonuses.

The plaintiffs allege that PG&E Corporation and the Utility
engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California
state law.  The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, as
well as compensatory and punitive damages.

PG&E Corporation and the Utility contest the plaintiffs'
allegations.  In January 2013, PG&E Corporation and the Utility
requested that the court dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
the CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues
raised by the plaintiffs' allegations.

In the alternative, PG&E Corporation and the Utility requested
that the court stay the proceeding until the CPUC investigations
are concluded.  The court set a hearing on the motion for May 23,
2013.  Due to the early stage of this proceeding, PG&E Corporation
and the Utility are unable to estimate the amount (or range of
amounts) of reasonably possible losses that may be incurred in
connection with this matter.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Gets Final Approval of $7.5MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. obtained final court approval
to settle two securities lawsuit for a total of $7.5 million,
according to the Company's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

   (A) In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont, Piedmont's
previous advisors, and certain officers and directors of Piedmont.
Upon motion by the defendants, the case was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on April 17, 2007.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), based upon allegations that
the proxy statement for Piedmont's 2007 internalization
transaction (the "Internalization") contains false and misleading
statements or omits to state material facts. On February 9, 2011,
the plaintiff dismissed its claim for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
seeks, among other things, (i) certification of the class action;
(ii) a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
misleading; (iii) unspecified monetary damages; (iv) to nullify
any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy process; (v)
to nullify the Internalization; (vi) cancellation and rescission
of any stock issued as consideration in the Internalization, or,
in the alternative, rescissory damages; and (vii) the payment of
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On September 16,
2009, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment. On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

On November 17, 2011, the court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's pre-trial motions to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.

On February 23, 2012, the court granted several of defendants'
motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion
plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence
impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain
evidence proposed to be submitted by plaintiff.

On March 20, 2012, the court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment. On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 26, 2012, the
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appealed to
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on October 12, 2012.

   (B) In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP

On October 25, 2007, the same stockholder filed a second purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against Piedmont and its board of directors.
The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of
(i) those persons who were entitled to tender their shares
pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by Lex-Win
Acquisition LLC, a former stockholder, on May 25, 2007, and (ii)
all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed
with the SEC on October 16, 2007.

The Company disclosed, "As subsequently amended and dismissed in
part, the complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder
based upon allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose
certain information in our amended response to the Lex-Win tender
offer and (ii) purported misstatements or omissions in our proxy
statement concerning then-existing market conditions, the
alternatives to a listing or extension that were explored by the
defendants, the results of conversations with potential buyers as
to our valuation, and certain details of our share redemption
program."

"On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010. Defendants sought and received
permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal
the class certification order on an interlocutory basis. On April
11, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the
district court's order certifying a class and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

"Following remand, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
pursuant to leave granted on September 27, 2011. On October 21,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint. On August 27, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and entered judgment
in favor of the defendants. On September 26, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals."

               Agreements to Resolve Legal Actions

On October 11, 2012, Piedmont reached agreement in principle to
settle both of the lawsuits. Under the terms of the settlement of
the first suit, Plaintiff will dismiss the appeal and release all
defendants from liability in exchange for total payment of $4.9
million in cash by Piedmont and its insurer.

In the second case, Plaintiffs will dismiss the appeal and release
all defendants from liability in exchange for total payment of
$2.6 million in cash by Piedmont and its insurer.

On December 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed unopposed motions for
preliminary approval of the settlements, which were granted by the
Court on January 2, 2013. Pursuant to the terms of the settlements
and the Court's orders preliminarily approving the settlements,
notice of the lawsuits and proposed settlements was given to the
classes.

On March 21, 2013, Plaintiffs filed motions for final approval of
the settlements and for award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On
April 18, 2013, the Court entered an order granting final approval
of the settlements, dismissing the lawsuits with prejudice, and
awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.


POLYONE CORPORATION: Settles Suit Over Spartech Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Polyone Corporation reached a settlement in a suit filed by
shareholders over its planned acquisition of Spartech Corporation,
according to the Company's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year quarter March
31, 2013.

Five derivative and purported class action lawsuits were filed by
alleged Spartech stockholders against various defendants including
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC
concerning the acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries Merger Sub and Merger LLC.

The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the directors of
Spartech breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by
approving the then-proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne and
by failing to disclose certain information to stockholders.

Three of the lawsuits (including two filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court, and one filed in the United States District Court
of the Eastern District of Missouri) have been dismissed.  The
remaining two lawsuits, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri, were consolidated for all purposes as In re
Spartech Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

On March 5, 2013, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of the In re Spartech Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, including dismissal with prejudice and a
release of all claims made therein against all defendants.

Defendants agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement in order
to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience, and
distraction of continued litigation, including the risk of
delaying or adversely affecting the merger.

The proposed settlement remains conditioned upon, among other
things, the execution of a stipulation of settlement and final
approval of the proposed settlement by the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri. There can be no assurance that the court
will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such a
stipulation, or that the settlement conditions will be met.
PolyOne is fully insured with respect to these lawsuits.


SEMPRA ENERGY: No Date Yet to Review Ruling in Wildfire Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date is currently scheduled to review the affirmation
that claims against San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a
wholly owned company of Sempra Energy, must be pursued in
individual lawsuits, rather than as class actions, according to
Sempra Energy's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In October 2007, San Diego County experienced several catastrophic
wildfires. Reports issued by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) concluded that two of these fires
(the Witch and Rice fires) were SDG&E "power line caused" and that
a third fire (the Guejito fire) occurred when a wire securing a
Cox Communications' (Cox) fiber optic cable came into contact with
an SDG&E power line "causing an arc and starting the fire."

Cal Fire reported that the Rice fire burned approximately 9,500
acres and damaged 206 homes and two commercial properties, and the
Witch and Guejito fires merged and eventually burned approximately
198,000 acres, resulting in two fatalities, approximately 40
firefighters injured and an estimated 1,141 homes destroyed.

A September 2008 staff report issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division
reached substantially the same conclusions as the Cal Fire
reports, but also contended that the power lines involved in the
Witch and Rice fires and the lashing wire involved in the Guejito
fire were not properly designed, constructed and maintained. In
April 2010, proceedings initiated by the CPUC to determine if any
of its rules were violated were settled with SDG&E's payment of
$14.75 million.

Numerous parties have sued SDG&E and Sempra Energy in San Diego
County Superior Court seeking recovery of unspecified amounts of
damages, including punitive damages, from the three fires. These
include owners and insurers of properties that were destroyed or
damaged in the fires and government entities seeking recovery of
firefighting, emergency response, and environmental costs. They
assert various bases for recovery, including inverse condemnation
based upon a California Court of Appeal decision finding that
another California investor-owned utility was subject to strict
liability, without regard to foreseeability or negligence, for
property damages resulting from a wildfire ignited by power lines.

In October 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's
ruling that these claims must be pursued in individual lawsuits,
rather than as class actions on behalf of all persons who incurred
wildfire damages. In February 2011, the California Supreme Court
denied a petition for review of the affirmance. No trial date is
currently scheduled.

SDG&E filed cross-complaints against Cox seeking indemnification
for any liability that SDG&E might incur in connection with the
Guejito fire, two SDG&E contractors seeking indemnification in
connection with the Witch fire, and one SDG&E contractor seeking
indemnification in connection with the Rice fire. SDG&E settled
its claims against Cox and the three contractors for a total of
approximately $824 million. Among other things, the settlement
agreements provide that SDG&E will defend and indemnify Cox and
the three contractors against all compensatory damage claims and
related costs arising out of the wildfires.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Unit Still Faces Mexico, Calif. Power Outage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a wholly owned company
of Sempra Energy, continues to face a suit in relation to a
September 2011 power outage.

According to Sempra Energy's May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013, the September 2011 power outage lasted
approximately 12 hours and affected millions of people from Mexico
to southern Orange County, California. Within several days of the
outage, several SDG&E customers filed a class action lawsuit in
Federal District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service
Company, Pinnacle West, and SDG&E alleging that the companies
failed to prevent the outage.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages,
including punitive damages. In July 2012, the court granted
SDG&E's motion to dismiss the punitive damages request and
dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle West from
the lawsuit.

In addition, more than 7,000 customers' claims, primarily related
to food spoilage, have been submitted directly to SDG&E. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) conducted a joint inquiry
to determine the cause of the power failure and issued a report in
May 2012 regarding their findings. The report does not make any
findings of failure on SDG&E's part that led to the power failure.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Suits and Claims Seeking PI Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company is defending itself against claims
and lawsuits seeking damages from alleged personal injury,
according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of
legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from
alleged personal injuries.  These proceedings include claims by
children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-
containing paint, claims for damages allegedly incurred by the
children's parents or guardians, and claims for damages allegedly
incurred by professional painting contractors.

These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs.
These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups
of individuals and class actions.

The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al.,
initiated an action in state court against the Company, other
alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries
Association in September 1999.  The claims against the Company and
the other defendants included strict liability, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims
is the theory of "risk contribution" liability (Wisconsin's theory
which is similar to market share liability) due to the plaintiff's
inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that
allegedly injured the plaintiff.  The case ultimately proceeded to
trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense
verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead
carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result.  The
plaintiff appealed and, on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court
of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Company and
other defendants.

Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of
liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk
contribution/market share liability) that does not require the
plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that
allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based
paint litigation.  Although the risk contribution liability theory
was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this
theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been
judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts.  However, in
an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et
al., on November 15, 2010, the District Court held that
Wisconsin's risk contribution theory as applied in that case
violated the defendants' right to substantive due process and is
unconstitutionally retroactive.  The District Court's decision in
Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., has been appealed by the
plaintiff.

Founded in 1866, The Sherwin-Williams Company and its consolidated
wholly owned subsidiaries are engaged in the development,
manufacture, distribution and sale of paint, coatings and related
products to professional, industrial, commercial and retail
customers primarily in North and South America with additional
operations in the Caribbean region, Europe and Asia.  The Company
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Lead Pigment and Lead-Based Paint Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company's past operations included the
manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints.  The
Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant
in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal
injury actions, purported class actions, and actions brought by
various counties, cities, school districts and other government-
related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead
pigments and lead-based paints.  The plaintiffs' claims have been
based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict
liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and
omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of
action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and
consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share
liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.
The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated
with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and
others.  The Company is also a defendant in legal proceedings
arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints
that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including
the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead
during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on
surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint.  The Company
believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or
subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such
litigation.  The Company has not settled any lead pigment or lead-
based paint litigation.  The Company expects that additional lead
pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the
Company in the future asserting similar or different legal
theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and
relief.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Notwithstanding the Company's views on the merits, litigation is
inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company
ultimately may not prevail.  Adverse court rulings or
determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the
lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company
and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future
claims and proceedings.  In addition, from time to time, various
legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted,
promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and
former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints
respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products
or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company
and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict
the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation,
the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings, or
the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations
may have on the litigation or against the Company.  In addition,
management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the
potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or
resulting from any such legislation and regulations.  The Company
has not accrued any amounts for such litigation.  With respect to
such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the
Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has
occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of
potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature and there is no substantive information upon which an
estimate could be based.  In addition, any potential liability
that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations
cannot reasonably be estimated. In the event any significant
liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating
to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a
material impact on net income for the annual or interim period
during which such liability is accrued.  Additionally, due to the
uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability
and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such
litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable
to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.  An estimate of the potential impact on
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition cannot be made due to the uncertainties.

Founded in 1866, The Sherwin-Williams Company and its consolidated
wholly owned subsidiaries are engaged in the development,
manufacture, distribution and sale of paint, coatings and related
products to professional, industrial, commercial and retail
customers primarily in North and South America with additional
operations in the Caribbean region, Europe and Asia.  The Company
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


SUPERVALU INC: Seeks En Banc Rehearing in Suit Over C&S Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
SuperValu Inc. filed a petition for an en banc rehearing in the
consolidated lawsuit arising from a 2003 transaction with C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., according to the Company's April 24,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended February 23, 2013.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against SuperValu Inc. alleging that a 2003 transaction between
the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a
conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003
transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming
Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which
were located in New England.  Since December 2008, three other
retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions.
The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued
through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and
the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company
and C&S purchased from each other.  The Plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On July
5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel
Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and
plaintiffs appealed.

On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court
granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed
the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs
have appealed these decisions.  On February 12, 2013, the 8th
Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring the
plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the
Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc
Rehearing.

SuperValu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- operates primarily
in the United States grocery channel.  The Company, headquartered
in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, provides supply chain services,
primarily wholesale distribution, operates five competitive,
regionally-based traditional format grocery banners under the Cub
Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher's, Shop 'n Save and Shoppers Food &
Pharmacy banners, and operates hard discount retail stores and
licenses stores to independent operators under the Save-A-Lot
banner.


SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Still Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit,
however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the
result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
IOS.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 23, 2013.

SuperValu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- operates primarily
in the United States grocery channel.  The Company, headquartered
in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, provides supply chain services,
primarily wholesale distribution, operates five competitive,
regionally-based traditional format grocery banners under the Cub
Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher's, Shop 'n Save and Shoppers Food &
Pharmacy banners, and operates hard discount retail stores and
licenses stores to independent operators under the Save-A-Lot
banner.


TRIUMPH: Recalls 24 SPEED TRIPLE Model for 2012 and 2013
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 20, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorcycle
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Other
Units affected:             24
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013170
TC ID number:               2013170
Manufacturer recall number: 488

Advisory details

On certain motorcycles, an incorrect gearbox detent spring could
allow the transmission to inadvertently shift out of gear while
the vehicle is underway.  This would result in a loss of vehicle
propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions,
and the rider's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction:
Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the gearbox detent
spring.

Affected products

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   TRIUMPH   SPEED TRIPLE        2012, 2013


TRIUMPH: Recalls 33 SPEED TRIPLE Model Motorcycles
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 20, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorcycle
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Other
Units affected:             33
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013169
TC ID number:               2013169
Manufacturer recall number: 487

Advisory details

On certain motorcycles, an incorrect washer was installed under
the neutral switch during vehicle assembly.  This could allow the
neutral indicator light to remain illuminated when a gear is
selected.  As a result, the vehicle operator could mistakenly
believe that the transmission is in the neutral position and
release the clutch, allowing the vehicle to suddenly surge
forward.  This could cause a crash resulting in property damage
and/or personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will replace the
neutral switch washer.

Affected products

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   TRIUMPH   SPEED TRIPLE         2012, 2013


TRIUMPH: Recalls 61 DAYTONA 675, and DAYTONA 675R Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 21, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorcycle
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Other
Units affected:             61
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013171
TC ID number: 2013171

Advisory details

On certain motorcycles, the throttle cable guide was omitted
during vehicle assembly.  As a result, the throttle cables could
become trapped in the steering stop, which could prevent the
throttle from opening and closing normally.  This could result in
a loss of vehicle propulsion, or make it difficult to slow or stop
the vehicle.  Either issue could increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction:
Dealers will install a throttle cable guide.  Also, the throttle
cables will be inspect and replaced if necessary.

Affected products

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   TRIUMPH   DAYTONA 675            2012
   TRIUMPH   DAYTONA 675R           2012


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Bank Continues to Face Overdraft Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation's banking unit continues to face a
lawsuit filed by Amber Hawthorne.

In its Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011, the
Holding company initially reported on the class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Umpqua Bank by Hawthorne relating to overdraft
fees and the posting order of point of sale and ACH items.

There have been no material developments in the Hawthorne case,
Umpqua Holdings disclosed in its May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.


UNITED STATES: Class in Suit vs. Treasury Dept. Workers Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds granted, in part, a motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel in ADHID
MIRI, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ANDY DILLON, ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 11-15248, (E.D. Mich.).

This is a civil rights lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  Plaintiffs Adhid Miri and The Exchange, Inc., on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated legal
persons, allege that the Defendants violated their Fourth
Amendment rights by following the Michigan Department of
Treasury's uniform practice during the relevant time period and
entering their property without a judicially authorized warrant
and seizing their property in satisfaction of an alleged tax debt.
The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and to appoint class counsel.

On May 14, 2013, Judge Edmunds certified a class for liability
purposes only:

  All persons, businesses, or entities who or which have been
  subjected to non-consensual, non-judicially approved search
  and/or seizure of their property carried out by agents or other
  persons acting on behalf of or at the direction of the Michigan
  Department of Treasury within the applicable statute of
  limitations period where such persons failed to secure
  judicially authorized warrants permitting such search and/or
  seizure.

The Court finds that a class action for liability purposes only is
both a superior and manageable method of adjudication.

"It will provide significant economies of time, effort, and
expense for the litigants and the Court in light of the
predominance of common questions of fact and law regarding
liability," says Judge Edmunds.

The Court also appoints Plaintiffs' counsel to serve as Co-Lead
Class Counsel.

A copy of the District Court's May 14, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/k391eifrom Leagle.com.


UNITIL CORP: Plaintiffs Appealed Ruling in Suit vs. Fitchburg
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs have appealed a ruling denying their motion for
class certification in the class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Unitil Corporation, according to the Company's April
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al
v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).  The Complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary
housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain
and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers
in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice
storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008.  The
Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 ice storm.

On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying
it in part.  Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs
in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case
as a class action.  On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its
decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class
action.  As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now
proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages;
however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court.

The Company continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and
will continue to defend itself vigorously.

Unitil Corporation is a public utility holding company
headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire.  Unitil's principal
business is the local distribution of electricity and natural gas
throughout its service territory in the states of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and Maine.


USG CORP: Chinese Wallboard Damage Claims vs. L&W Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Property damage claims related to Chinese wallboard remain pending
against a subsidiary of USG Corporation, according to the
Company's April 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

L&W Supply Corporation, a Company subsidiary, is one of many
defendants in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard
installed in homes primarily in the southeastern United States
during 2006 and 2007.  The wallboard was made in China by a number
of manufacturers and was sold or used by hundreds of distributors,
contractors, and homebuilders.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits,
most of whom are homeowners, claim that the Chinese-made wallboard
emits elevated levels of sulfur gases causing a bad smell and
corrosion of copper or other metal surfaces.  The Plaintiffs also
allege that the Chinese-made wallboard causes health problems such
as respiratory problems and allergic reactions; although the focus
of the litigation has been on plaintiffs' property damage claims
and not their alleged bodily injury claims.  The plaintiffs seek
damages for repair of their property and for alleged bodily
injury.  Most of the lawsuits against L&W Supply Corporation are
part of the consolidated multi-district class action litigation
titled In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2047, pending in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Most of the claims against L&W Supply Corporation relate to
wallboard the Company delivered that was manufactured by Knauf
Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or Knauf Tianjin, an affiliate of a
multi-national manufacturer of building materials that also
beneficially owns approximately 14% of USG's outstanding shares of
common stock.  The Company has reached settlement agreements with
Knauf and the plaintiffs in the class action litigation that cap
the Company's responsibility for all claims against it arising out
of homes to which the Company delivered Knauf Tianjin wallboard.
The Company is also subject to a small number of claims that
relate to Chinese-made wallboard that was not manufactured by
Knauf, but which is alleged to have odor and corrosion problems.
Those claims are not encompassed within the Company's settlement
with Knauf or the recent class action settlement.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has an accrual of $8 million for
its estimated cost of resolving all Chinese wallboard property
damage claims pending against the Company and expected to be
asserted in the future, and, based on the terms of the Company's
settlement with Knauf, the Company has a related receivable of $3
million recorded as an offset to the accrual.  The Company's
accrual does not take into account litigation costs, which are
expensed as incurred, or any set-off for potential insurance
recoveries.  Based on the information available to the Company to
date regarding the number and type of pending claims, estimates of
likely future claims, and the estimated costs of resolving those
claims, the Company believes that it has appropriately accrued for
its exposure related to the Chinese wallboard claims, and the
Company believes that these claims and other similar claims that
might be asserted will not have a material effect on its results
of operations, financial position or cash flows.

USG Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials.
The Company produces a wide range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and residential and
nonresidential repair and remodel construction as well as products
used in certain industrial processes.


USG CORP: Suits Over Pricing of Gypsum Wallboards Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuits over the pricing of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States were recently consolidated in
Pennsylvania, according to USG Corporation's April 24, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Beginning December 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum
Company were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States.  The lawsuits also name as
defendants all seven of the other U.S. wallboard manufacturers.
The lawsuits claim that the alleged conspiracy began with some
manufacturers informing their customers in the fall of 2011 that
wallboard prices would be increased effective January 2012 and
that job quotes would be eliminated.  Each plaintiff purports to
bring its claims on behalf of a class of entities that purchased
gypsum wallboard in the United States directly from any of the
defendants or their affiliates from January 1, 2012, to the
present.  On behalf of the alleged class, the plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, tripled under the antitrust laws, as
well as pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees.  These lawsuits were recently consolidated in the
federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, titled In re: Domestic Drywall
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. In addition to these lawsuits,
other similar lawsuits were filed claiming that the alleged
conspiracy began in 2008 and seeking to certify a class of direct
purchasers who bought gypsum wallboard from January 1, 2008, to
the present.  Some of these wallboard pricing lawsuits also name
L&W Supply Corporation, a Company subsidiary, as a defendant and
some are filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum
wallboard, i.e., those who purchased the wallboard for end use and
not for resale, at any time from January 1, 2012, to the present.
All of these lawsuits are also included in the consolidated
proceedings.

The Company says these wallboard pricing class action lawsuits are
in a preliminary stage.  However, based on the information known
to it, the Company believes these lawsuits will not have a
material effect on its results of operations, financial position
or cash flows.

USG Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials.
The Company produces a wide range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and residential and
nonresidential repair and remodel construction as well as products
used in certain industrial processes.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Texas Unit Continues to Face Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. remains a defendant
in a suit alleging it conspired with other hospitals in Texas to
depress nurses' compensation levels, according to the Company's
May 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the Company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system
defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified
San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the
San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated
the federal antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims. The first count asserts
that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain
competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation.

The second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage,
salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the
effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting
competition for nurses based on their compensation. The class on
whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to
comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals
since June 20, 2002.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount
pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. From
2006 through April 2008, the Company and the plaintiffs worked on
producing documents to each other relating to, and supplying legal
briefs to the court in respect of, solely the issue of whether the
court will certify a class in this suit, the court having
bifurcated the class and merit issues.

In April 2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling
on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company
believes that the allegations contained within this putative class
action suit are without merit, and the Company has vigorously
worked to defeat class certification. If a class is certified, the
Company will continue to defend vigorously against the litigation.


VANGUARD HEALTH: DMC May be Lone Non-Settling Defendant
-------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for The Detroit Medical Center (DMC) owned by Vanguard
Health Systems, Inc. was advised that it appears likely that the
DMC will be the only non-settling defendant in an antitrust suit
against several hospital systems, according to the Company's May
2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action against the
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s Baptist Health System subsidiary
in San Antonio, Texas, was filed against the Company in federal
district court in San Antonio, the same attorneys filed three
other substantially similar putative class action lawsuits in
federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois, Albany, New York and
Memphis, Tennessee against some of the hospitals or hospital
systems in those cities (none of such hospitals or hospital
systems being owned by the Company).

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these
cases said in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in
other jurisdictions and in December 2006 they brought a
substantially similar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals
or hospital systems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area,
one of which was DMC.

Since representatives of the Service Employees International Union
("SEIU") joined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of
all four complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in
the media, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in these
actions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt to
organize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio and
Detroit.

The registered nurses in the Company's hospitals in San Antonio
and Detroit are currently not members of any union. In the suit in
Detroit against DMC, the court did not bifurcate class and merits
issues.

On March 22, 2012, the judge issued an opinion and order granting
in part and denying in part the defendants' motions for summary
judgment. The defendants' motions were granted as to the count of
the complaint alleging wage fixing by defendants, but were denied
as to the count alleging that the defendants' sharing of wage
information allegedly resulted in the suppression of nurse wages.

The opinion, however, did not address plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and did not address defendants' challenge to the
opinion of plaintiffs' expert, but specifically reserved ruling on
those matters for a later date. At a mandatory mediation in
January 2013 before the presiding U.S. District Court judge,
counsel for DMC was advised that it appears likely that the DMC
will be the only non-settling defendant.


VIROPHARMA INCORPORATED: Faces Securities Suit Over Vancocin
------------------------------------------------------------
ViroPharma Incorporated continues to face a securities lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania over its Vancocin product, according to the
Company's May 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 17, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
naming as defendants ViroPharma Incorporated and Vincent J.
Milano.  The complaint alleges, among other things, possible
securities laws violations by the defendants in connection with
certain statements made by the defendants related to the Company's
Vancocin product. On October 19, 2012, the complaint was amended
to include additional officers of the Company as named defendants
and allege additional information as the basis for the claim. The
defendants believe that the allegations in the class action
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Fuel/Environmental Charges Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2011 and January 2012, Waste Management, Inc. was named
as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County
Alabama, respectively.  These cases primarily pertain to the
Company's fuel and environmental charges included on its invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts.
The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a
purported class action against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock
County, Alabama, making similar allegations.  The prior Alabama
lawsuit was removed to federal court, where the federal court
ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' national class action claims.
The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against these pending
lawsuits.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  The Company's subsidiaries
provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.
The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-
energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United
States.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Received Final OK of ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. received final approval in March 2013 of
its settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by participants
of its subsidiary's plans under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's April 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary ("WM
Holdings") filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al.
v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The lawsuit attempts to increase the
recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the
plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in,
and the settlements relating to, the securities class action
against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation
against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the
decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within
the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least
two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement
by WM during the relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Previously, the plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled
in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims
brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM
stock as an investment option within the plan.  The Company has
reached a settlement with the plaintiffs on this matter.  The
proposed class settlement agreement was given final approval by
the Court on March 18, 2013.  The settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  The Company's subsidiaries
provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.
The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-
energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United
States.


                             *********

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  * * *