CAR_Public/130603.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 108

                             Headlines



AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify "Kunstmann" Suit Denied in January
AARON'S INC: "Kurtis" Wage and Hour Suit Has Discovery Plan
AARON'S INC: Awaits Dismissal of Class Claims in Consumer Suit
ABB: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Power-One Acquisition
ALLIANT ENERGY: No Ruling Yet in Appeal Against $18.7MM Accord

AMERICAN VANGUARD: DBCP Exposure Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
AMN HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Lawsuit
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Continues to Face Silicosis-Related Suits
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Defends La Colosa-Related Suits vs. AGAC
AT&T INC: Wins Final OK of Accord in Universal Service Fees Suit

AT&T INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Lawson" & "Luque" Suits
AUTOLIV INC: Defends Class Suit Filed by Construction Laborers
AUTOLIV INC: Defends Suits Alleging Antitrust Law Violations
BANK OF CHILE: Defends Erroneous Forwarding of Statements Suit
BELL MOBILITY: Judge Allows 911 Service Class Action to Proceed

BRINKER INT'L: To Defend Labor Suit Revived by Cal. Supreme Court
CITIBANK NA: Seeks Dismissal of Reinsurance Fraud Class Action
D.F. ROULEAU: Recalls in Shell Hazelnuts Due to Salmonella Risk
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
EQUINIX INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk 3rd Amended Suit on June 7

ERIE INDEMNITY: Seeks Dismissal of $300-Mil. Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Mortgage Fees
FORD MOTOR: Faces Suits Over Hybrid Mileage Ratings
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 393 Lincoln MKZ Model Cars
FRUIT TREASURE: Recalls Fresh Thai Peppers Due to Salmonella Risk

H & M HENNES: Reannounces Recall of 2.9K Children's Water Bottles
HAMMARY FURNITURE: Recalls 165 Dining Side Chairs Over Fall Risk
IIROC: Faces $52-Mil. Class Action Over Investor Privacy Breach
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trials in State AWP Litigation Set
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Certification in Antitrust Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reaches Accord in "Monk" Securities Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. Hearing in British Columbia Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ethicon's Pelvic Mesh Devices Attract Suits
KINDER MORGAN: Has MOU in Securities Suit Over Copano Merger
KINDER MORGAN: Suit Over EPB's Purchase of SNG Stake Continues

KOPPERS HOLDINGS: No Ruling, Schedules Yet in "Gainesville" Suit
KTM NORTH: Recalls KTM & Husaberg Motorcycles Over Crash Risk
LG DISPLAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits & Investigations
LIGHTLIFE FOODS: Recalls Lightlife Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers
LITHIA MOTORS: Discovery in Consolidated "Neese" Suit Ongoing

LKQ CORP: Suit vs. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Pending
MADISON SQUARE: Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y. in Discovery Phase
MAKO SURGICAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in New York
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Case Stayed Pending N.Y. Actions

NAM TAI ELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
NETFLIX INC: Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Complaint
NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Sale to TSYS
NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Paid Settlement in Consumer Suit in April
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 4 Frontier 2013 Model Vehicles

PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Additional Smoking, Health Litigations
PHILIP MORRIS: May 2014 Hearing in "Israel, El-Roy" Lights Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Disputes Brazilian Plaintiffs' Right to Sue
PILOT FLYING J: Faces Another Class Action Over Fuel Rebate Scheme
PIPER JAFFRAY: Under Antitrust, Securities Investigation

POTTERY BARN: Recalls 12,000 Sweet Lambie Crib Bumpers
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Zeus Shareholders Sue for Alleged Breaches
ROYAL CANADIAN: Declines Offer to Mediate
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: No Class Claims in Boeing Workers' Suit
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Hearing Notice to Dismiss "Harkness" Sent

SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Order in Suit Over Benefit Plan Amendments
SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling in Appeal From ERISA Suit Dismissal
SUPERMEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over FLSA Violations
SUPERMEDIA INC: Inks Tentative Deal to Settle Suit vs. Officers
SUPERMEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Suit vs. EBC

TIM PARTICIPACOES: Continues to Defend Various Class Actions
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Pilots' Suit Transferred to Illinois Court
VISA INC: Houston Council May Pursue Claims in Credit Card Suit
VIVE LA FETE: Recalls 710 Children's Two-Piece Pajama Sets
WAL-MART: Sued for Contractors' Labor Violations

WELLS FARGO: Plans Appeal to $203MM Award in Overdraft Fees Suit
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: 9th Cir. Flips Remand Order in "Lopez" Suit
WIN LUCK: Recalls Lam Sheng Kee's Shrimp and Lobster Balls
YELP INC: No Hearing Yet on Appeal Over Dismissal of Class Suit

* Supreme Court Issues Corporation-Friendly Decisions


                             *********


AARON'S INC: Bid to Decertify "Kunstmann" Suit Denied in January
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed by store
general managers is proceeding as a class action with members
numbering more than 200, according to the company's May 3, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the United
States District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case No.:
2:08-CV-1969-WMA), on October 29, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that
the Company improperly classified store general managers as exempt
from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages for a class almost exclusively comprised of former general
managers, most of whom terminated employment with the Company more
than a year ago. On October 4, 2012 the Court denied the Company's
motion for summary judgment, and on January 23, 2013, the Court
denied the Company's motion for class decertification.

The current class includes 247 individuals. The parties continue
to work on next steps for the conduct of the case.


AARON'S INC: "Kurtis" Wage and Hour Suit Has Discovery Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. filed by
hourly store employees, are in the process of implementing an
agreed upon discovery plan, according to the company's May 3,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division on October 28, 2011 and was transferred on
February 23, 2012 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) (Civil No.:1:12-
CV-00563-AT).

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees
who worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violated
the FLSA when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees'
time for meal breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did not
take their meal breaks.

Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked through
meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their meal
breaks and asked to perform work. As a result of the automatic
deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to account
for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime, and
consequently underpaid him.

Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime compensation and other damages
for all similarly situated employees nation-wide for the
applicable time period. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued an
order granting conditional certification of a class consisting of
all hourly store employees from October 27, 2008 to the present.

The current class size is 1,788, which is less than seven percent
of the potential class members. The parties are in the process of
implementing an agreed upon discovery plan.


AARON'S INC: Awaits Dismissal of Class Claims in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. is awaiting a decision from the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on its motion to
dismiss class allegations in a consumer lawsuit, according to the
company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes.

The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil
Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory
and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees.

Discovery on this matter is closed. To date, no class has been
certified and, on December 17, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss
the class allegations from plaintiff's complaint. The company
believes that briefing on the issue of class certification is now
complete and the issue is properly before the Court for review.


ABB: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Power-One Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Enkhardt, writing for pv magazine, reports that Swiss power
and automation technologies giant ABB announced on April 22 the
acquisition of inverter manufacturer U.S. Power-One.  But
shareholders of the American company are claiming that the US$1
billion sale price is too low.  On May 14 they filed a class
action against ABB.

The shareholders and Power-One would "do much better remaining on
their own through this purportedly lucrative growth cycle."
SMA

Power-One shareholders have filed a class action on May 14
claiming that ABB's proposed $1 billion acquisition price is too
low, according to U.S. news source "Law360".  The shareholders
believe that ABB has undervalued the American inverter and have
not taken into consideration the fact that the energy market is
"set to explode over the next decade."

The action was filed by Mario Furtado at the Delaware Chancery
Court.  He cited as main reasons to turn down the offer, figures
from the U.S. Department of Energy which say that global energy
demands will double by 2025, and a forecast from the International
Energy Agency which predicts a 10% growth in photovoltaic systems
every year until 2021.

The shareholders and Power-One would "do much better remaining on
their own through this purportedly lucrative growth cycle," said
the news report.

The ABB board of directors had agreed to the acquisition of Power-
One for US$1,028 million in equity value or $6.35 per share in
cash on April 22.

The day before the deal was announced, Power-One shares traded at
$4.04 on the Nasdaq and ABB offered the U.S. manufacturer a 57%
premium on top of that.  However, Furtado argues that the stock
could trade at a much higher price, since it had traded in the $7
range in the past year. On the same day the deal was announced the
price climbed 59% to $6.34.

Nevertheless, the merger is still subject to regulatory approvals
and shareholder vote, according to the report by news source
Law360.  The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2013.


ALLIANT ENERGY: No Ruling Yet in Appeal Against $18.7MM Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is yet to rule on the motion
of Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) to reverse part
or all of a 2012 judgment awarding $18.7 million to plan
participants, according to the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In February 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
Plan in the Court. The complaint alleged that certain Plan
participants who received distributions prior to their normal
retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were
entitled in violation of ERISA because the Plan applied an
improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance
account to their normal retirement age.

These Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to
normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an
annuity payment. The Court originally certified two subclasses of
plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or
partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from
January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who
received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28,
2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from
March 1, 2002 to August 17, 2006.

In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted
the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. In
December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided
the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash
balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should
have been 8.2% and that a pre-retirement mortality discount would
not be applied to the damages calculation.

In May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made
approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to
certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was
required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the
Internal Revenue Service, which resulted in a favorable
determination letter for the Plan in 2011.

In November 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the
Plan was itself an ERISA violation. In March 2012, the Plan and
the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to
the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for
appointment of class representatives and class counsel.

In July 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but only as to the
interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount
claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and
order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior
subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a
lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006
and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2%
under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons
who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and
August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under
the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality
discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court
then granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the two
subclasses, and denied as moot the parties' motions for summary
judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses.

In August 2012, as amended in September 2012, the Court entered a
final judgment for the two subclasses in the total amount of $18.7
million. The judgment amount includes pre-judgment interest
through July 2012 and takes into account the approximate $10
million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the Plan
amendment in 2011.

In September 2012, the Plan appealed the judgment, and the
interlocutory orders that led to the judgment, to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Plan filed its
opening brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which
it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. In April 2013,
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments and has
not yet issued its final decision.

The judgment discussed did not address any award for plaintiffs'
attorney's fees or costs. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed
a motion with the Court for payment of plaintiffs' attorney's fees
and costs in the amount of $9.6 million, of which $4.3 million was
requested to be paid out of the common fund awarded to the two
subclasses in the September 2012 judgment. In February 2013, the
Court awarded plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs in the amount
of $6.4 million. The Court ordered that all of the fees and costs
be paid from the $18.7 million judgment previously awarded and not
be in addition to that judgment.

Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss
contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of March
31, 2013. A material loss contingency for the judgment will not be
recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a
settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan
and payment of additional benefits to Plan participants.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: DBCP Exposure Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit Blanco v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al.
are still awaiting a Delaware Supreme Court ruling on their appeal
against a court order refusing to dismiss a suit filed by banana
plantation workers in Costa Rica, according to the company's May
3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC
Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-
149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff, residing in Costa
Rica, against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC,
The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and
Dole Food Company.

In the action, plaintiff claims personal injury (sterility)
arising from the alleged exposure to DBCP between 1979 and 1980
while working as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in
Costa Rica. Defendant Dow filed a motion to dismiss the action as
being barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as this
same plaintiff filed the same claim in Florida in 1995 and
subsequently withdrew the matter. Plaintiff contends that the
statute of limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class
certification, which was denied.

AMVAC contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to
any DBCP supplied by AMVAC in Costa Rica. On August 8, 2012, the
court denied Dow's motion to dismiss based upon applicable
statutes of limitation. In response to that denial, on August 20,
2012, defendants filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and, on
September 18, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court granted
interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the State of
Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional tolling (that is,
whether it is proper for a Delaware court to follow the class
action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this case, Texas,
rather than its own two year statute of limitations).

Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed. The
Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument in the appeal on April
10, 2013 and is expected to deliver a ruling by the end of July
2013.

A similar case (referred to as Chaverri in the Company's Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012) involving claims for
personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf
of 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama has been
stayed pending the ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. is currently a defendant in a class
action related to wage and hour claims, according to the Company's
May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013."

The Company is subject to various claims and legal actions in the
ordinary course of its business. Some of these matters relate to
professional liability, tax, payroll, contract and employee-
related matters and include individual and collective lawsuits, as
well as inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies
regarding the Company's employment practices. The most significant
matter of which the Company is currently the defendant is a class
action related to wage and hour claims for which the Company has
accrued an immaterial amount for potential losses at March 31,
2013. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters
involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. The
range of reasonably possible losses for such matters cannot be
estimated at this stage and could differ materially from amounts
already accrued by the Company. Management is currently not aware
of any other pending or threatened litigation that it believes is
reasonably possible to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations, financial position or liquidity.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Continues to Face Silicosis-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited continues to face lawsuits and claims
for damages allegedly suffered as a result of silicosis, according
to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In October 2006, a former employee, Mr. Thembekile Mankayi,
instituted a legal action captioned Mankayi v. AngloGold Ashanti
in the Witwatersrand Local Division High Court of South Africa
against AngloGold Ashanti, claiming approximately R2.6 million
(approximately $0.3 million) for damages allegedly suffered as a
result of silicosis.  Mr. Mankayi's case was heard in the High
Court of South Africa in June 2008, and an appeal was heard in the
Supreme Court of Appeal in 2010.  In both instances judgment was
awarded in favor of AngloGold Ashanti on the basis that an
employer is indemnified against such a claim for damages by
section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act, 1993 (COIDA).  A further appeal that was lodged by
Mr. Mankayi was heard in the Constitutional Court of South Africa
(Constitutional Court).  On March 3, 2011, the Constitutional
Court held that section 35 of COIDA does not cover an "employee"
who qualifies for compensation in respect of "compensable
diseases" under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Workers
Act, 1973 (ODMWA).  This judgment allows such qualifying employee
to pursue a civil claim for damages against the employer outside
he provisions of either statute.  Following the Constitutional
Court judgment, Mr. Mankayi's estate may proceed with his case in
the High Court.  Without paying any amount in settlement of the
claim, AngloGold Ashanti paid to Mr. Mankayi's estate agreed legal
costs.  The Company will continue to defend the case on its
merits.

Following the Constitutional Court decision, AngloGold Ashanti has
become subject to numerous claims relating to silicosis and other
Occupational Lung Diseases (OLD), including several potential
class actions and individual claims.

On or about August 21, 2012, AngloGold Ashanti was served with an
application instituted by Bangumzi Bennet Balakazi and others in
which the applicants seek an order declaring that all mine workers
(former or current) who previously worked or continue to work in
specified South African gold mines for the period owned by
AngloGold Ashanti and who have silicosis or other OLD constitute
members of a class for the purpose of proceedings for declaratory
relief and claims for damages.  The lawsuit is captioned Bangumzi
Bennet Balakazi and others v. AngloGold Ashanti.  In the event the
class is certified, such class of workers would be permitted to
institute actions by way of a summons against AngloGold Ashanti
for amounts as yet unspecified.  On September 4, 2012, AngloGold
Ashanti delivered its notice of intention to defend this
application.  AngloGold Ashanti has also delivered a formal
request for additional information that it requires to prepare its
affidavits in respect to the allegations and the request for
certification of a class.

On or about January 8, 2013, AngloGold Ashanti and its subsidiary
Free State Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations) Limited, alongside
other mining companies operating in South Africa, were served with
another application to certify a class.  The lawsuit is captioned
Bongani Nkala and others v. Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited,
AngloGold Ashanti, Free State Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations)
Limited and others.  The applicants in the case seek to have the
court certify two classes namely: (i) current and former
mineworkers who have silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any
other disease) and who work or have worked on certain specified
gold mines at any time from January 1, 1965, to date; and (ii) the
dependants of mineworkers who died as a result of silicosis
(whether or not accompanied by any other disease) and who worked
on these gold mines at any time after January 1, 1965.  AngloGold
Ashanti has filed a notice of intention to oppose the application.

In October 2012, a further 31 individual summonses and particulars
of claim were received by AngloGold Ashanti relating to silicosis
and/or other OLD.  The total amount being claimed in the 31
summonses is R77 million (approximately $8 million).  On October
22, 2012, AngloGold Ashanti filed a notice of intention to oppose
these claims.  AngloGold Ashanti has also served a notice of
exception to the summonses which, if successful, is expected to
require the plaintiffs to redraft the particulars of claim to
correct certain errors.

AngloGold Ashanti Limited -- http://www.anglogoldashanti.co.za/
-- was incorporated in South Africa in 1944 and is headquartered
in Johannesburg.  AngloGold Ashanti is a major gold exploration,
mining and marketing company, holds a portfolio of operations and
projects on four continents, and has a worldwide exploration
program.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Defends La Colosa-Related Suits vs. AGAC
-----------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited continues to defend a Colombian
subsidiary against class action lawsuits arising from the La
Colosa project, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Two class action lawsuits are currently pending before different
Colombian state and federal courts in relation to AngloGold
Ashanti Colombia S.A. (AGAC)'s La Colosa project, which is
currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core
concession contracts:

   * Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima,
     Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del
     Rosario, Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines,
     Federal Department of the Environment, Housing and
     Territorial Development and Ingeominas (September 2010)
     (Uscocoello); and

   * Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment,
     Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima
     and AGAC (February 2012).

Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain
restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to
environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.
Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on
which certain economic activities are restricted.  AGAC has
opposed, and has sought the dismissal of most of, the class action
lawsuits that have been filed against it.

In 2013, the Tribunal de Cundinamarca (a Colombian appellate
court) dismissed both cases known as Maria del Pilar Hurtado v.
Federal Department of Mines, Ingeominas and AGAC.

The class action lawsuit that has progressed the most is
Uscocoello, which was filed in the Third Administrative Court of
the District of Ibague on September 9, 2010.  It named each of
Ingeominas (the Colombian regulatory agency for mining
activities), the Federal Department of the Environment, Housing
and Territorial Development, as well as the Federal Department of
Mines as defendants.  AGAC was subsequently joined to the lawsuit
as an additional defendant.  The plaintiffs are the User
Association of the Land Adequation District of Coello and Cucuana
Rivers (Usocoello) (a cooperative representing local farmers), the
Autonomous Regional Corporation of Tolima ("Cortolima"), (the
government of the State of Tolima), the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Tolima (Procurador Judicial Ambiental y
Agrario para el Tolima), the University of Ibague (Estudiantes de
la Universidad del Rosario), (a student association of the
University of El Rosario) and Fedearroz (the Colombian association
of rice growers).

The plaintiffs have petitioned the court to order the defendant
governmental entities not to declare the La Colosa mining project
feasible on the grounds that the project threatens a healthy
environment, public health and food safety for Usocoello members
and local residents.  Such order by the court would result in the
revocation of AGAC's permit to temporarily use for its exploration
activities on 6.39 hectares of forest reserve that are otherwise
designated as restricted areas.

In addition, as each of AGAC's three core mining concession
contracts governing the La Colosa project provides that Ingeominas
has the discretion to declare the underlying concession void if
AGAC breaches applicable environmental laws or regulations, the
plaintiffs have petitioned the court to direct Ingeominas to
cancel such concession contracts on the ground that AGAC has
violated the Code of Natural Resources.  If the plaintiffs prevail
and Ingeominas is ordered to cancel AGAC's three core concession
contracts, the company would be required to abandon the La Colosa
project and all of AGAC's other existing mining concession
contracts and pending proposals for new mining concession
contracts would also be cancelled.  In addition, AGAC would be
banned from doing business with the Colombian government for a
period of five years.  As a result, AGAC would be unable to
conduct any mining exploration or development activities during
such period.  However, this would not affect other AngloGold
Ashanti subsidiaries operating in Colombia, which hold singularly
or in concert with joint venture partners the majority of
AngloGold Ashanti's concession contracts in Colombia.

As no settlement was reached at a special conciliation hearing
(Pacto de Cumplimiento) held on April 27, 2011, the trial has
continued and the court is gathering evidence from the parties in
preparation for its ruling.

                  Toche Anaima Belt Class Suit

In addition to the La Colosa class action lawsuits, this lawsuit
was filed in connection with the Toche Anaima Belt:

   * The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the
     Environment, Housing and Territorial Development,
     Ingeominas, AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda
     Ltda., Fernando Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez
     (December 2011); and

In connection with the class action lawsuit, in September 2011,
the Superior Court of the District of Ibague granted the plaintiff
a preliminary injunction that resulted in the suspension of AGAC's
mining concession contracts relating to certain greenfield
exploration activities in the Toche Anaima Belt.  These contracts
do not include AGAC's core concession contracts relating to the La
Colosa project.  AGAC has appealed against this preliminary
injunction and its appeal is still pending.

AngloGold Ashanti Limited -- http://www.anglogoldashanti.co.za/
-- was incorporated in South Africa in 1944 and is headquartered
in Johannesburg.  AngloGold Ashanti is a major gold exploration,
mining and marketing company, holds a portfolio of operations and
projects on four continents, and has a worldwide exploration
program.


AT&T INC: Wins Final OK of Accord in Universal Service Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri, granted final approval
to a settlement entered into by AT&T Inc. in a suit over its
universal service fees, according to the company's May 3, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The company disclosed in the regulatory filing: "In October 2010,
our wireless subsidiary was served with a purported class action
in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri (MBA Surety Agency, Inc.
v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which the plaintiffs contended that we
violated the FCC's rules by collecting Universal Service Fees on
certain services not subject to such fees, including Internet
access service provided over wireless handsets commonly called
"smartphones" and wireless data cards, as well as collecting
certain other state and local fees.

"Plaintiffs defined the class as all persons who from April 1,
2003, until the present had a contractual relationship with us for
Internet access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.
Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages as well as
injunctive relief.

"In October 2012, the Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri, to
which the case had been transferred, granted preliminary approval
to a settlement in which we receive a complete release of claims
from members of the settlement class. Under the settlement, our
liability to the class and its counsel is capped at approximately
$150, the amount that was collected from customers but not owed or
remitted to the government. On February 20, 2013, the Circuit
Court held a final fairness hearing and subsequently issued an
order granting final approval to the settlement. As of April 17,
2013, all notices of appeal had been dismissed and the time for
filing appeals had elapsed. Accordingly, the order approving the
settlement is final and the parties are proceeding to implement
the settlement."


AT&T INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Lawson" & "Luque" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. obtained court approval of settlement in two lawsuits
filed against it alleging labor law violations, according to the
company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Two wage and hour cases were filed in federal court in December
2009 each asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Luque et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., U.S. District Court in the
Northern District of California) (Lawson et al. v. BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Georgia). Luque also alleges violations of a
California wage and hour law, which varies from the federal law.

In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain groups of wireline
supervisory managers were entitled to paid overtime and seek class
action status as well as damages, attorneys' fees and/or
penalties. Plaintiffs have been granted conditional collective
action status for their federal claims and also were expected to
seek class action status for their state law claims.

The company stated in the regulatory filing: "We have contested
the collective and class action treatment of the claims, the
merits of the claims and the method of calculating damages for the
claims. A jury verdict was entered in favor of the Company in
October 2011 in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut on similar
FLSA claims. In April 2012, we settled these cases, subject to
court approval, on terms that will not have a material effect on
our financial statements. On April 23, 2013, the court granted
approval of the settlement in Lawson. On April 26, 2013, the court
granted final approval following its earlier preliminary approval
of the settlement in Luque."


AUTOLIV INC: Defends Class Suit Filed by Construction Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit
brought by the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St.
Louis, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of
Greater St. Louis filed a lawsuit against Autoliv, Inc. and two of
its officers (collectively "the Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action
File No. 13-CIV-2546).  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that
artificially inflated the Company's stock price in violation of
the federal securities laws, in particular Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and failed to disclose prior to June 6, 2012, that employees had
engaged in certain price fixing activity in violation of the law
and that the Company's prior financial results allegedly had been
inflated as a result of the anti-competitive activity.  The
Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of a class of
purchasers of common stock of the Company between October 26,
2010, and August 1, 2011.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
in an unspecified amount.  The Defendants deny any wrongdoing,
believe the claims are baseless, and will defend accordingly.

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.  The Company
functions as a holding corporation and owns two principal
subsidiaries, Autoliv AB and Autoliv ASP, Inc., which are
developers, manufacturers and suppliers to the automotive industry
of automotive safety systems with a broad range of product
offerings, including modules and components for passenger and
driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems,
seatbelts, steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash
protection systems and child seats.


AUTOLIV INC: Defends Suits Alleging Antitrust Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc., is defending itself against antitrust class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Authorities in several jurisdictions are currently conducting
broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected
anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global
automotive vehicle industry.  These investigations include, but
are not limited to, segments in which the Company operates.  In
addition to pending matters, authorities of other countries with
significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate
similar investigations.  It is the Company's policy to cooperate
with governmental investigations.

On February 8, 2011, a Company subsidiary received a grand jury
subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") related to its investigation of anti-competitive
behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems.  On June 6,
2012, the Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ and
subsequently pled guilty to two counts of antitrust law violations
involving a Japanese subsidiary and paid a fine of $14.5 million.
Under the terms of the agreement the Company will continue to
cooperate with the DOJ in its investigation of other suppliers,
but the DOJ will not otherwise prosecute Autoliv or any of its
subsidiaries, present or former directors, officers or employees
for the matters investigated (the DOJ did reserve the option to
prosecute three specific employees, none of whom is a member of
the senior management of the Company).

On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission
("EC"), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities
of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for a
similar investigation.  The investigation is still pending and the
Company remains unable to estimate the financial impact such
investigation will have or predict the reporting periods in which
such financial impact may be recorded and has consequently not
recorded a provision for loss as of March 31, 2013.  However,
management has concluded that it is probable that the Company's
operating results and cash flows will be materially adversely
impacted for the reporting periods in which the EC investigation
is resolved or becomes estimable.

On October 3, 2012, the Company received a letter from the
Competition Bureau of Canada related to the subjects investigated
by the DOJ and EC, seeking the voluntary production of certain
corporate records and information related to sales subject to
Canadian jurisdiction.  On November 6, 2012, the Korean Fair Trade
Commission visited one of the Company's South Korean subsidiaries
to gather information for a similar investigation.  The Company
cannot predict the duration, scope or ultimate outcome of either
of these investigations and is unable to estimate the financial
impact they may have, or predict the reporting periods in which
any such financial impacts may be recorded.  Consequently, the
Company has not recorded a provision for loss as of March 31,
2013, with respect to either of these investigations.  Also, since
the Company's plea agreement with the DOJ involved the actions of
employees of a Japanese subsidiary, the Japan Fair Trade
Commission is evaluating whether to initiate an investigation.

The Company is also subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct.  Notably, the Company, several of its
subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of
fourteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits, twelve of
which are pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Brad Zirulnik v. Autoliv, Inc. et
al. filed on June 6, 2012; A1A Airport & Limousine Service, Inc.
v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. and Frank Cosenza v. Autoliv, Inc. et al.
each filed on June 8, 2012; Meetesh Shah v. Autoliv, Inc., et al.
filed on June 12, 2012; Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al.
v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. and Richard W. Keifer, Jr. v. Autoliv,
Inc. et al. each filed on June 26, 2012; Findlay Industries, Inc.
v. Autoliv, Inc. filed on July 12, 2012; Beam's Industries, Inc.
v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. filed on July 21, 2012; Melissa Barron et
al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed on July 24, 2012; Stephanie
Kaleuha Petras v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed on August 14, 2012;
Superstore Automotive, Inc. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed
on November 1, 2012; and Roseana Weatherwax v. Delphi Automotive
LLP et al., filed in the Northern District of California on
March 8, 2013, and transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan
on April 1, 2013).  The other two lawsuits are pending in Canada
(Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv Inc. et al.,
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18,
2013, and M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv Inc. et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013).

The Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that the defendants
have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices
of occupant safety systems or components thereof in violation of
various antitrust laws and unfair or deceptive trade practice
statutes.  The Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves
and various purported classes of direct and indirect purchasers of
occupant safety systems and purchasers or lessees of vehicles in
which such systems have been installed, injunctive relief, treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs in these cases make
allegations that extend significantly beyond the specific
admissions of the plea.

The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to
actively defend itself against the same.  While it is probable
that the Company will incur losses as a result of these antitrust
cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently
cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has
been recorded as of March 31, 2013.

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.  The Company
functions as a holding corporation and owns two principal
subsidiaries, Autoliv AB and Autoliv ASP, Inc., which are
developers, manufacturers and suppliers to the automotive industry
of automotive safety systems with a broad range of product
offerings, including modules and components for passenger and
driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems,
seatbelts, steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash
protection systems and child seats.


BANK OF CHILE: Defends Erroneous Forwarding of Statements Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Banco de Chile is defending itself from a class action lawsuit
alleging erroneous electronic forwarding of bank statements,
according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In August 2012, Corporacion Nacional de Consumidores y Usuarios de
Chile (a Chilean consumer association) filed a class action
against Banco de Chile pursuant to Law N 19,496, whereby the
plaintiff demanded that the Company compensates 52,770 of its
current account holders who were affected by erroneous electronic
forwarding of bank statements that occurred in July 2012.  The
plaintiff seeks total compensation of CLP80,000 (approx. $170) for
each account holder as well as the reimbursement of maintenance
fees charged on current accounts.  The demand and allegations are
currently under judicial review.

The Company says it is not possible to predict the outcome of this
proceeding; however, in any case it will not have a material
impact on the Company.

Founded in 1893, Banco de Chile -- http://www.bancochile.cl/--
provides traditional banking products and specialized financial
services to its diversified customer base of individuals and
companies.  Banco de Chile was organized as a banking corporation
in Chile and is headquartered in Santiago.


BELL MOBILITY: Judge Allows 911 Service Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Bell
Mobility Inc. is liable to thousands of subscribers in Canada's
North who were charged for 911 service on their cellphone bills
but unable to dial the number in an emergency, a Northwest
Territories judge has ruled.

The wireless carrier faced a trial in March in Yellowknife in the
case, the first class-action lawsuit to go to trial in Northwest
Territories.  The first stage of the proceedings was meant to
determine if the wireless carrier was liable; the amount it owes
in damages is to be determined at a second stage of the trial.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs initially estimated potential damages
at between C$1 million and C$3 million.

The lawsuit was filed in 2007 on behalf of the approximately
30,000 Bell Mobility customers in Northwest Territories, Nunavut
and Yukon (except for Whitehorse, which has a 911 service) and
alleged that Bell unfairly charged them for a service they could
not use.

In his decision released on May 17, Justice Ron Veal of the
Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories ruled that Bell was
liable, but denied a request for extra punitive damages in the
case.

Bell argued in its statement of defense that it has charged
various fees, or no 911 fees at all, in different contracts with
its customers over time.  It argues that 911 fees were simply
meant to cover the costs of the network that would enable a 911
system, and that Bell is not responsible for whether
municipalities decide to set up 911 services, something over which
it has no control.

The lawsuit was filed by Yellowknife residents James and Samuel
Anderson, who took issue with the 75 cents a month, or C$9 a year,
they had to pay Bell Mobility for 911 service, despite living in a
place where local governments had not set up a 911 system.

The plaintiffs' lawyers said the win comes after more than five
years of legal wrangling.  "It was a David and Goliath struggle in
which the consumers have won an important victory," said Keith
Landy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an e-mail.

Bell spokesman Jason Laszlo said the company was pleased the
decision affirmed that Bell was not itself required to provide 911
operators.  But he said the company would appeal the decision on
the question of whether some customers should be exempt from
paying fees charged to others across the country.

"We are pleased the court ruled in our favor on the main issues
certified for trial, and found that Bell Mobility is not required
to provide live 911 operators," Mr. Laszlo said in an e-mail.
"That is the responsibility of local governments."


BRINKER INT'L: To Defend Labor Suit Revived by Cal. Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. continues to face remaining claims in
a labor suit by hourly restaurant team members, according to the
company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team
members filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company
in California Superior Court alleging violations of California
labor laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks. The
lawsuit sought penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as
a class action by the trial court in July 2006.

In July 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the class
action on all claims with prejudice. In October 2008, the
California Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision of
the Court of Appeal and oral arguments were heard by the
California Supreme Court on November 8, 2011.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion
affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part for
further proceedings. The California Supreme Court's opinion
resolved many of the legal standards for meal periods and rest
breaks in the California restaurants and the company intends to
vigorously defend its position on the remaining issues upon remand
to the trial court.


CITIBANK NA: Seeks Dismissal of Reinsurance Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that Citibank NA on
May 16 urged a Pennsylvania federal judge to toss a putative class
action alleging it schemed with private mortgage insurers to push
fraudulent reinsurance on home mortgages, saying homeowners waited
too long to sue under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Citibank argued that the plaintiffs could not toll RESPA's one-
year statute of limitations because they did not act with due
diligence to discover the alleged "captive reinsurance scheme"
within the limitations period.  The suit was filed in January.


D.F. ROULEAU: Recalls in Shell Hazelnuts Due to Salmonella Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:         May 29, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type:        Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:           Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall:      Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:        various retailers
Distribution:          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:          Retail

The public warning issued on May 23, 2013, has been updated to
include additional product and distribution information.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume certain in shell hazelnuts because the products may
be contaminated with Salmonella.

The following products were sold in packages of various weights or
in bulk at the locations indicated below.  Consumers who are
unsure if they have affected product are advised to check with
their retailer.

Product name    Store name           Location
------------    ----------           --------
"Avelines"      D.F. Rouleau Inc.    241, Principale,
                                      Les Hauteurs, QC

Dates Sold: April 18, 2013, to May 10, 2013

"Avelines"      Marche St-Laurent    142, Rte 112,
UPC code        Nouvelle Inc.        Nouvelle, QC
200330800923

Dates Sold: March 11, 2013, to May 14, 2013

"Avelines"       Epicerie Simon       133, rue Theriault,
                 Rioux                Padoue, QC

Dates Sold: March 29, 2013, to May 14, 2013

"Avelines"      Toit des             40, Principale Ouest,
UPC code        Magasineux           La-Trinite-des-Monts, QC
200003506244    (1988) Inc.

  Dates Sold: April 18, 2013, to May 13, 2013

"Avelines       Alimentation N.M.    228, rue Gendron,
naturelles"                          St-Leon-le-Grand, QC

Dates Sold: April 10, 2013, to May 10, 2013

"Avelines en    Cooperative de      1040-C, Route 195,
ecailles"       Solidarite de       St-Vianney, QC
UPC code        St-Vianney
200524102260

Dates Sold: March 28, 2013, to May 14, 2013

"Avelines"      Epicerie            430, Chemin Central,
                 St-Francois Inc.    St-Francois-d'Assise, QC

Dates Sold: March 7, 2013, to May 14, 2013

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

These recalls are part of an on-going food safety investigation
associated with a recall of bulk hazelnuts from USA.  The CFIA is
working with the recalling firms and distributors to identify all
affected products.

The importer, distributers, and retailers are voluntarily
recalling the affected products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Pinckney, writing for The Business Review, reports that a
Maryland law firm is seeking a Delcath Systems Inc. investor to
act as the lead plaintiff in a class action suit against the
medical device manufacturer.

Brower Piven P.C. of Stevensen, Md., has issued an alert urging
investors who lost more than $250,000 investing in Delcath's stock
over the past two years to contact it before July 8.

Delcath, which is in the process of moving its headquarters from
New York City to Queensbury, is seeking U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval to sell its Melblez Kit chemotherapy
system in the United States.  On May 2, an FDA advisory panel
advised against approval, saying the risks of the system, which
targets inoperable ocular melanoma that has spread to the liver,
outweigh the benefits.

This sent the stock tumbling.  It now trades for about 41 cents a
share, down from $5.87 two years ago, when the quest for approval
started.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, claims Delcath violated of the Securities
Exchange Act by failing to disclose that the Melblez Kit posed a
risk to patients and that its manufacturing facilities were in
violation of Current Good Manufacturing Practices.

Other law firms also have said they are filing suit against
Delcath or investigating possible claims against the company.

Delcath officials had no immediate comment.


EQUINIX INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk 3rd Amended Suit on June 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on Equinix, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint is currently set for June 7, 2013, according to the
Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers.  The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages,
fees and costs.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
November 7, 2011.  On March 2, 2012, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave the
plaintiffs thirty days in which to amend their complaint.
Pursuant to stipulation and order of the court entered on March
16, 2012, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would have up to
and through May 2, 2012, to file a Second Amended Complaint.  On
May 2, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
asserting the same basic allegations as in the prior complaint.
On June 15, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  On September 19, 2012, the Court took the
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint off calendar and notified the parties that it would make
its decision on the pleadings.  Subsequently, on September 24,
2012, the Court requested the parties submit supplemental briefing
on or before October 9, 2012.  The supplemental briefing was
submitted on October 9, 2012.

On December 5, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and on
January 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint.  On February 26, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint is currently set for June 7, 2013.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  The
Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of
the litigation would have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company believes that while an unfavorable outcome to this
litigation is reasonably possible, a range of potential loss
cannot be determined at this time.  The Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with the legal matters as of March 31,
2013, as the Company concluded that an unfavorable outcome is not
probable.

Equinix, Inc., provides global data center services that protect
and connect the world's most valued information assets.  The
Company is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Seeks Dismissal of $300-Mil. Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360, reports that directors of
Erie Indemnity Co., which runs the Erie Insurance Exchange, urged
a Pennsylvania federal court to toss a $300 million putative class
action claiming they violated fiduciary duties to millions of
exchange members, arguing that the dispute belongs before the
Pennsylvania Insurance Department.

The putative class action was brought on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange and its more than 2 million subscribers.


FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Mortgage Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that First American Title
Co. was hit with a proposed class action in Texas on May 17 that
claims it overcharged homeowners for mortgage fees even though it
knew the exact amounts to be paid to counties.

Acting as an escrow agent, First American charged Texas homeowners
for recording fees greater than the county recording fees it paid,
according to a complaint filed in federal court by plaintiff
Julian Aymett.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Suits Over Hybrid Mileage Ratings
---------------------------------------------------
Jon LeSage, writing for Autobloggreen, reports that Ford is
waiting to see if it will be facing several class action lawsuits
over its mileage ratings -- three of which were filed in late
April.  Suits filed in federal courthouses in Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania and California claim Ford is overstating the average
mileage ratings for its 2013 Ford C-Max and Fusion Hybrids.

Marianne Cibeu, a Massachusetts resident, filed for a federal
class action lawsuit claiming she's only getting 32 miles per
gallon in her Ford C-Max hybrid despite the EPA/Ford rating of
47 mpg.  As you can see in the complaint filed in a US District
Court, the suit is asking for $5 million in damages for Cibeu and
all Massachusetts buyers of 2013 C-Max and Fusion hybrids.

"Plaintiffs purchased a Fusion Hybrid or C-Max Hybrid, only to be
stuck with under-performing, less valuable vehicles that inflict
higher fuel costs on their owners."

In California, two law firms combined their cases against Ford for
making "false and misleading" claims.  When we first reported on
the case, back in December, there were reportedly hundreds of C-
Max and Fusion Hybrid owners who'd joining the lawsuit.  Not much
later, Consumer Reports conducted extensive tests for both hybrids
and found their performance to be significantly worse than the US
Environmental Protection Agency mileage ratings.  A similar case
has been filed in US District Court in Philadelphia.  "Plaintiffs
are some of the tens of thousands of consumers who purchased a
Fusion Hybrid or C-Max Hybrid, only to be stuck with under-
performing, less valuable vehicles that inflict higher fuel costs
on their owners," according to the complaint.

So far, the wave of lawsuits hasn't hurt sales of the C-Max or
Fusion Hybrid, though it's still early in the legal battle.  The
EPA, which determines (sort of) the mileage numbers Ford and other
automakers put on window stickers, says that it's confident the
ratings of both Ford vehicles are sound but will review them.
Both Ford and the EPA have emphasized real-world mileage results
are completely dependent on how the driver operates the vehicle.
That hasn't gone over well with people filing class action
lawsuits.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 393 Lincoln MKZ Model Cars
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 29, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Car
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Electrical
Units affected:             393
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013187
TC ID number:               2013187
Manufacturer recall number: 13S05

On certain vehicles, insulation on the engine block heater power
cord may become damaged if the cord is handled during very cold
days (temperatures below -20C).  This could create an electrical
shock hazard as well as a risk of fire, which could result in
property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will
replace the block heater cord.

Affected products:

           Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------
   Make      Model    Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----    ----------------------
   LINCOLN   MKZ               2013


FRUIT TREASURE: Recalls Fresh Thai Peppers Due to Salmonella Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit Treasure of Chula Vista, California, is recalling 43 boxes
(25lb) of fresh THAI PEPPERS, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled fresh Thai peppers were distributed on April 7, 2013,
to April 10, 2013, to retail markets in California.

The product comes in a 25lb white wax box with a logo that says
"JAMMIN PEPPERS."  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm354348.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in some 25 lb boxes of
Thai peppers.

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 25lb boxes of Thai peppers are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-619-365-7110
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.


H & M HENNES: Reannounces Recall of 2.9K Children's Water Bottles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., New York, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,900 Children's Water Bottles (previously
recalled in Sept. 2012 [http://is.gd/NLW8Wb]). Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The water bottle's spout can break off, posing a choking hazard to
children.

H&M has received one report of an incident in England of the water
bottle spout breaking off in a child's mouth as the child was
drinking from the bottle.  No injuries have been reported.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/1pyJD0

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold
exclusively at H&M stores with children's departments nationwide
from July 2012 through March 2013 for between $1.50 and $5.  About
200 of the bottles were sold after the original recall was
announced in September 2012.

Consumers should immediately stop using the water bottle and call
H&M to receive a prepaid mailer to return the bottle.  Upon
receipt of the returned bottle, consumers will be mailed a full
refund plus a $25 H&M gift card.  H&M may be reached toll-free at
(855) 466-7467 from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Central Time daily
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.hm.com/and click on
United States, then Customer Service at the bottom of the page and
Recalled Items from the left column for more information.


HAMMARY FURNITURE: Recalls 165 Dining Side Chairs Over Fall Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hammary Furniture, of High Point, North Carolina, announced a
voluntary recall of about 165 Abaca and Wood Dining Side Chairs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The connections between the legs and frame of the chairs can flex,
posing a fall hazard to the user.

Hammary Furniture has received two reports of the legs on the
chairs flexing.  No reports of falls or injuries have been
received.

The recalled dining side chairs have a square seat and back, dark
wood frame with a brown woven abaca back and an upholstered white
seat.  The chairs were sold with a table as casual dining chairs.
Item number 090-418 and Hammary Furniture are printed on a label
underneath the seat.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/Hc9FVz

The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and
sold at La-Z-Boy Galleries and other furniture stores nationwide
from June 2012 to March 2013 for about $300 per chair.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to their local furniture retailer where purchased for
a free replacement chair of comparable value or a full refund.
Hammary Furniture may be reached toll-free at (888) 315-4957 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or
online at http://www.hammary.com/and click Recall for more
information.


IIROC: Faces $52-Mil. Class Action Over Investor Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to SBWIRE, in February, an employee of the enforcement
division of IIROC carelessly misplaced highly sensitive financial
information of 52,000 Canadian investors when she lost a "portable
device", resulting in the biggest breach of investor privacy in
Bay Street history.  What's more is that contrary to IIROC's own
rules, the data was not encrypted, no explanation has been offered
as to what IIROC was doing with that data in the first place, and
it has been clumsily revealed that the regulator attempted to
cover up the breach until it was clear that this breach of
investor privacy was about to be leaked.

In what was a panic of mass proportions, the Investment Industry
Regulatory Organization of Canada scrambled to announce the lost
data just 2 weeks ago, in what some say was a deliberate attempt
to mislead the investing public.  In a press release, the
regulator went to great lengths to give the appearance that the
security breach had just taken place and that they were responding
rapidly, and pro-actively.  But in the days following this
revelation it became clear that nearly 9 weeks had passed since
the breach of security was known by IIROC and that orders were
given by its CEO, Susan Wolburgh Jenah to cover the matter up.

Sources inside the IIROC say that its board has met and is
contemplating the firing of Jenah, and two other IIROC senior
executives namely; Joe Yassi, IIROC VP of Business Conduct
Compliance and Paul R. Riccardi, Senior Vice President of
Enforcement.  The source says that tensions are high at IIROC head
office and that an announcement of a major management shakeup is
pending.

Bay Street, and Canada's investing public have been waiting to
hear from the regulator regarding its on-going internal
investigation, and to find out whom if anyone would be held
responsible.  Its own regulatory body; the Canadian Securities
Administrators has said that it has launched a separate
investigation into the matter, but Bay Street remains skeptical
that anything will come from it.  "It's kind of like being
investigated by your mom.  CSA won't do anything that makes IIROC
look bad," said one investment advisor at Scotia McLeod.

The class action being brought by the law firm of De Grandpre
Chait, estimates that the damage caused by stress, potential for
fraudulent information use, and inconvenience amounts to $1,000
per customer.  Lawyer, Louis Demers says he believes IIROC has
contravened the Privacy Act, which provides that "business must
take security measures to protect personal information they have
collected."

Lucy Becker, Vice President, Public Affairs has refused to address
the lawsuit saying that, "It is inappropriate to comment as the
matter is before the courts."  Interestingly, IIROC's has no
problem with its own process of press-releasing endless amounts of
unproven allegations against registrants when it drags them
through its own enforcement process.  Many on Bay Street are more
than amused by the pickle IIROC is now finding itself in. "IIROC
has no friends in the investment industry. They have built up
their own brand, and are doing nothing but trying to maintain
their own jobs by trying to malign the reputations of the firms
they regulate.  Its beyond unethical.  They are like an ignorant
mafia," says one former IIROC employee who left last year citing
what she said was cultural shift away from regulating from a basis
of knowledge to a strategy of bullying everyone and hoping nobody
realized that they were becoming progressively more incompetent as
they continue to lose veteran industry staff.

IIROC announced that it is taking additional measures to protect
the credit ratings of any concerned clients.  Perhaps IIROC member
firms and the Canadian banks should stand up for investors and
refuse to hand over this kind of data in the first place.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trials in State AWP Litigation Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Trials in several Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation filed
against Johnson & Johnson are set for 2013 and 2014, according to
the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and
federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to
fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other
things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue.

Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider
reimbursement levels. Many of these cases, both federal actions
and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private
persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of
the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities
that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.

In June 2007, after a trial on the merits, the MDL Court dismissed
the claims of two of the plaintiff classes against the J&J AWP
Defendants. In March 2011, the Court dismissed the claims of the
third class against the J&J AWP Defendants without prejudice.

AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to
trial against other manufacturers. Several state cases against
certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson have been settled,
including Kentucky, which had been set for trial in January 2012
and Kansas which had been set for trial in March 2013. Louisiana
and Mississippi are set for trial in October 2013, Illinois is set
for trial in May 2014, and Alaska is set for trial in July 2014.
Other state cases are likely to be set for trial in due course.

In addition, an AWP case against the J&J AWP Defendants brought by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was tried in Commonwealth Court
in October and November 2010. The Court found in the
Commonwealth's favor with regard to certain of its claims under
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law ("UTPL"), entered an injunction, and awarded $45 million in
restitution and $6.5 million in civil penalties.

The Court found in the J&J AWP Defendants' favor on the
Commonwealth's claims of unjust enrichment, misrepresentation/
fraud, civil conspiracy, and on certain of the Commonwealth's
claims under the UTPL. The J&J AWP Defendants have appealed the
Commonwealth Court's UTPL ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. The Company believes that the J&J AWP Defendants have
strong arguments supporting their appeal. Because the Company
believes that the potential for an unfavorable outcome is not
probable, it has not established an accrual with respect to the
verdict.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Certification in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A petition by Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD), a Johnson &
Johnson company, for interlocutory review of the class
certification in In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation is
pending, according to J&J's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD), a Johnson & Johnson company, had
received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department
of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an
investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action
complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking
damages for alleged price fixing.

These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the
District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class
certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit granted OCD's petition for interlocutory
review of the class certification ruling. That appeal is pending.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reaches Accord in "Monk" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a securities suit filed against Johnson & Johnson have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the case after
mediation, according to the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly.

Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 to recover his alleged economic losses. In December
2011, a motion by Johnson & Johnson to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part. Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider part
of the December 2011 ruling. Defendants filed answers to the
remaining claims of the Amended Complaint in February 2012 and the
case is proceeding to discovery. In May 2012, the Court denied
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and
Johnson & Johnson has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint in part. Following mediation, the parties have reached
an agreement in principle to settle the case.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. Hearing in British Columbia Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing is scheduled for October 2013 in a
suit filed against Johnson & Johnson over its McNeil infants' or
children's over-the-counter medicines, according to the company's
May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).

The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and the present one or more
various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines
that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility.

The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian
statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly
not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good
Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing is
scheduled for October 2013.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ethicon's Pelvic Mesh Devices Attract Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapsed, according to J&J's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.

Cases filed in Federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In
addition, a class action and several individual personal injury
cases have been commenced in Canada and Australia seeking damages
for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices.

The Company has established a product liability accrual in
anticipation of product liability litigation associated with
Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Changes to this accrual may be
required in the future as additional information becomes
available.


KINDER MORGAN: Has MOU in Securities Suit Over Copano Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Copano Shareholders' Litigation filed against
Kinder Morgan, Inc. are in the process of preparing and filing a
Stipulation of Settlement, according to the company's May 3, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Three putative class action lawsuits are currently pending in
connection with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s (KMP)
proposed merger with Copano:

     (i) Schultes v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No.
06966), in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, which is
referred to as the Texas State Action;

    (ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 4:13-CV-
00540) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, which is referred to as the Texas Federal
Action; and

   (iii) In re Copano Energy, L.L.C. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. 8284-VCN in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
which is referred to as the Delaware Action, which reflects the
consolidation of three actions originally filed in the Court of
Chancery.

The Texas State Action, the Texas Federal Action and the Delaware
Action name Copano, R. Bruce Northcutt, William L. Thacker, James
G. Crump, Ernie L. Danner, T. William Porter, Scott A. Griffiths,
Michael L. Johnson, Michael G. MacDougall, Kinder Morgan
G.P.,Inc., KMP and Merger Sub as defendants. The Actions are
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class seeking to
enjoin the merger and allege, among other things, that the members
of Copano's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Copano for inadequate and unfair consideration
and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process, and that Copano,
KMP, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches. In addition, the plaintiffs in each of the
Texas State Action and the Delaware Action allege that the Copano
directors breached their duty of candor to unitholders by failing
to provide the unitholders with all material information regarding
the merger and/or made misstatements in the preliminary proxy
statement.

The plaintiffs in the Texas Federal Action also assert a claim
under the federal securities laws alleging that the preliminary
proxy statement omits and/or misrepresents material information in
connection with the merger.

On April 21, 2013, the parties in all the Actions executed a
Memorandum of Understanding by which, in exchange for the full
settlement and dismissal with prejudice of each of the Actions,
Copano agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning
the merger in a Form 8-K filed by Copano on April 22, 2013. The
parties are in the process of preparing and filing a Stipulation
of Settlement and such other additional documents as may be
required to in the Delaware Chancery Court for approval of the
settlement.


KINDER MORGAN: Suit Over EPB's Purchase of SNG Stake Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB) with which Kinder Morgan,
Inc. has a 2% general partner interest, continues to face the suit
Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et al., according to
Kinder Morgan's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In May 2012, a unitholder of EPB filed a purported class action in
Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both derivative and non
derivative claims, against EPB, and EPB's general partner and its
board. EPB was named in the lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant"
and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant."

The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to EPB of a 25%
ownership interest in SNG. Defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied. Defendants continue to believe this action is without
merit and intend to defend against it vigorously.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: No Ruling, Schedules Yet in "Gainesville" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a suit filed by property owners over alleged property
damage caused by its Gainesville plant.  The Court has not yet
scheduled a class certification hearing or trial, according to the
company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.

Plaintiffs recently amended their complaint for a second time. The
amended complaint defines the putative class as consisting of all
persons who are present record owners of residential real
properties located in an area within a two-mile radius of the
former Gainesville wood treating plant. The amended complaint
further alleges that chemicals and contaminants from the
Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two
mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in
value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class
properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the
chemicals at issue.

The amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property
values, the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and
punitive damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. Koppers Holdings
Inc. filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over it. The Court has not yet ruled on
Koppers Holdings Inc.'s motion to dismiss. The Court has not yet
scheduled a class certification hearing or trial. In April 2013,
plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their claims against 24
trucking company defendants without prejudice.


KTM NORTH: Recalls KTM & Husaberg Motorcycles Over Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, KTM North America Inc., of Amherst, Ohio; and
manufacturer, KTM-Sportmotorcycle AG, of Mattighofen, Austria,
announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Competition/Closed
Course and Enduro Motorcycles.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

During use, the throttle cable can malfunction and result in an
uncontrollable throttle.  This poses a crash hazard to the rider.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall includes 13 models of KTM and Husaberg brand
competition/closed-course and off-road motorcycles.  Eleven 2013
KTM models are being recalled: 85 SX, 85 SXS, 125 SX, 150 SX, 150
XC, 200 XC-W, 250 SX, 250 XC, 250 XC-W, 300 XC and 300 XC-W.  Two
2012 and 2013 Husaberg models are being recalled: TE 250 and TE
300.  The model number is printed on the rear fender on both sides
of the motorcycles below the tail end of the seat.  The KTM
motorcycles are black and orange and KTM is printed on the front
number plate and on both sides of the shrouds covering the fuel
tank.  The Husaberg motorcycles are blue, yellow and white with
Husaberg printed on both sides of the shrouds covering the fuel
tank.  Consumers can identify the model year by checking the
letter in the 10th position of the vehicle identification number
(VIN) on the right side of the steering head.  The letter "C" is a
2012 model; "D" is a 2013 model.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/h3gCXG

The recalled products were manufactured in Austria and sold at
authorized KTM and Husaberg dealerships nationwide from January
2012 to April 2013 for between $ 5,300 and $ 8,450.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled KTM and
Husaberg motorcycles and contact a KTM or Husaberg authorized
dealer to schedule a free repair.  KTM North America Inc. or
Husaberg North America may be reached toll-free at (888) 985-6090
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.ktm.com/,then click on Dealer & Service and
select Service, or at http://www.husaberg.com/,click on Dealers &
Service, then select Service, then click on Service & Safety Check
for more information.


LG DISPLAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits & Investigations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
and investigations alleging violations of antitrust laws,
according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In December 2006, LG Display received notices of investigation by
the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the European Commission,
the Korea Fair Trade Commission and the Japan Fair Trade
Commission with respect to possible anti-competitive activities in
the thin-film transistor liquid crystal display ("TFT-LCD")
industry.  LG Display subsequently received similar notices from
the Competition Bureau of Canada, the Secretariat of Economic Law
of Brazil, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission and the Federal
Competition Commission of Mexico.

In November 2008, LG Display executed an agreement with the U.S.
Department of Justice whereby LG Display and LG Display America
pleaded guilty to a Sherman Antitrust Act violation and agreed to
pay a single total fine of $400 million.  In December 2008, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
accepted the terms of the plea agreement and entered a judgment
against LG Display and LG Display America and ordered the payment
of $400 million.  The agreement resolved all federal criminal
charges against LG Display and LG Display America in the United
States in connection with this matter, provided that LG Display
continues to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice in
connection with the ongoing proceedings.

In December 2010, the European Commission issued a decision
finding that LG Display engaged in anti-competitive activities in
the TFT-LCD industry in violation of European Union competition
laws, and imposed a fine of EUR215 million.  In February 2011, LG
Display filed with the European Union General Court an application
for partial annulment and reduction of the fine imposed by the
European Commission.  As of April 25, 2013, the European Union
General Court has not ruled on LG Display's application.  In
November 2011, LG Display received a request for information from
the European Commission relating to certain alleged anti-
competitive activities in the TFT-LCD industry and has responded
to the request.

In November 2009, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission terminated its
investigation without any finding of violations or levying of
fines.  Also, in February 2012, the Competition Bureau of Canada
terminated its investigation without any finding of violations or
levying of fines.  As of April 25, 2013, no decision has been
issued by the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and the Company
believes the statutory time period by which the Commission was
required to have issued a decision has already lapsed.  As of
April 25, 2013, investigations by the Federal Competition
Commission of Mexico and the Secretariat of Economic Law of Brazil
are ongoing.

In December 2011, the Korea Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine
of WON31.4 billion after finding that LG Display and certain of
its subsidiaries engaged in anti-competitive activities in
violation of Korean fair trade laws.  In December 2011, LG Display
filed an appeal of the decision with the Seoul High Court.  As of
April 25, 2013, the Seoul High Court has not ruled on LG Display's
appeal.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display, LG Display America Inc. and other TFT-LCD
panel manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging
violation of respective antitrust laws and related laws.  In a
series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in
the United States were transferred to the Northern District of
California for pretrial proceedings, referred to as the MDL
Proceedings.  In March 2010, the federal district court granted
the class certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs, and granted in part and denied in part the class
certification motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.  In
January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated
entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct
purchaser class.  In April 2012, ten entities (including groups of
affiliated companies) submitted requests for exclusion from the
indirect purchaser class.  In addition, since 2010, the attorneys
general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against
LG Display, alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in
the MDL Proceedings.

In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct
purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in
December 2011.  In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with
the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state
attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan,
Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin, which was
approved by the federal district court in April 2013 and, in the
case of the state attorneys general actions, by their respective
state governments.  In March 2013, the attorney general of
Oklahoma dismissed its action as to LG Display pursuant to a
separate settlement agreement.  As of April 25, 2013, the
Illinois, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington
attorneys general actions remain pending.  While the Oregon
attorney general action is pending in the MDL Proceedings, the
Illinois and Washington attorneys general actions are pending in
their respective state courts, and the Mississippi and South
Carolina attorneys general actions are pending in federal courts
in their respective districts.

In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS
Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and
its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc., and Electrograph
Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate claims in the
United States, and all of the actions were subsequently
consolidated into the MDL Proceedings.  In November 2010, ATS
Claim, LLC dismissed its action as to LG Display pursuant to a
settlement agreement.  In addition, in 2010, TracFone Wireless
Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its affiliates, Target Corp., Sears,
Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp Inc., Good Guys, Inc.,
RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Sony
Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB Liquidation Trust and the
trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed
claims in the United States.  In addition, in 2011, the AASI
Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American Semiconductor
Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America,
Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son
Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC
Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of
Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate, T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., Tech
Data Corporation and its affiliate filed similar claims in the
United States.  In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC,
Rockwell Automation LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its
affiliates filed similar claims.  To the extent these claims were
not filed in the MDL Proceedings, they have been transferred or
are expected to be transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial
proceedings.  In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and its
affiliate filed similar claims in the High Court of Justice in the
United Kingdom.  In January 2013, AT&T Corp. and its affiliates
dismissed their action as to LG Display pursuant to a settlement
agreement.  In January 2013, the trustee of Circuit City Stores,
Inc. Liquidation Trust dismissed its action as to LG Display
pursuant to a settlement agreement, which was approved by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court.  In April 2013, Sony Electronics, Inc. and Sony
Europe Limited, together with their respective affiliates,
dismissed their actions as to LG Display pursuant to a settlement
agreement. LG Display reached a settlement with T-Mobile, U.S.A.,
Inc. in April 2013.

In Canada, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
class action complaints filed by the direct and indirect
purchasers in May 2011.  LG Display is pursuing an appeal of the
decision as well as defending the on-going class actions in Quebec
and British Columbia.

In February 2007, LG Display and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violation of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In May 2010, the defendants,
including LG Display, reached an agreement in principle with the
class plaintiffs to settle the action and, in March 2011, the
district court granted final approval of the settlement.

In October 2012, Arkema France and Altuglas International SAS
filed a request for arbitration in the International Court of
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce regarding the
termination of a supply contract with LG Display.  LG Display is
currently defending against their claims.

In each of the matters that are ongoing, the Company says it is
continually evaluating the merits of the respective claims and
vigorously defending itself.  Irrespective of the validity or the
successful assertion of the claims, the Company may incur
significant costs with respect to litigating or settling any or
all of the asserted claims.  While the Company continues to
vigorously defend the various proceedings, it is possible that one
or more proceedings may result in an unfavorable outcome.  The
Company has recognized provisions in 2012 with respect to those
contingencies in which management has concluded that the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of
loss is reasonably estimable.  However, actual liability may be
materially different from that estimated as of December 31, 2012,
and may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating
results or financial condition.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- is an
innovator of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display
technology and other display panel technologies, including organic
light-emitting display and flexible display products.  The Seoul,
South Korea-based Company manufactures display panels in a broad
range of sizes and specifications primarily for use in
televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors and various
other applications, including mobile products.


LIGHTLIFE FOODS: Recalls Lightlife Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lightlife Foods in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is voluntarily recalling a limited number of
packages of its Lightlife Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers that may
contain an undeclared allergen, milk.  Certain packages of the
Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers may have inadvertently been filled
with Lightlife Kick'n Black Bean Burgers, which contain an
allergen, milk.  The milk allergen is not declared on the Farmer's
Market Veggie Burger product label.  This product was shipped to
food stores and distributors nationwide.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.  There have been no illnesses reported to
date in connection with this product.

The affected product, Lightlife Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers,
are packaged in 12.0-ounce, 4-count light blue bags with a
Lightlife logo and picture of the veggie burger product on the
front panel.  This voluntary recall is limited to Lightlife
Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers in 12.0-ounce, 4-count light blue
bags bearing the following UPC code and Best if Used By dates
only:

          Lightlife Farmer's Market Veggie Burgers 12.0-ounce,
          4-count packages
          Unit UPC: 4345480525
          Lot Codes: 5483220300, 5483221700
          Best if Used By Dates: JULY 16 2013, JULY 30 2013

Both the UPC code and Best if Used By dates are printed on the
back of each bag, in the lower right corner.  No other Lightlife
products are affected.  Picture of the recalled products' label is
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm354454.htm

This product is a food safety concern only for people who are
allergic to milk.

Consumers who have purchased the impacted product should discard
it and contact Lightlife Foods for product replacement or
questions: 866-484-9623, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The issue was discovered after consumers found Lightlife Kick'n
Black Bean burgers in Farmer's Market Veggie Burger packages and
contacted the Company.  Lightlife Foods has taken the
precautionary measure of notifying the FDA and is voluntarily
recalling cases of the product shipped to retail food locations
nationwide.  Lightlife Foods will work with retail customers to
ensure that the recalled products are removed from store shelves.

Lightlife Foods is also issuing an alert through Food Allergy
Research & Education (FARE) in an effort to inform any potentially
impacted consumers.


LITHIA MOTORS: Discovery in Consolidated "Neese" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Lithia Motors, Inc.
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April 2007, a second case
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI), in the Superior Court for the
State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage.  These
lawsuits are now consolidated.  In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs
alleged that the Company, through its Alaska dealerships, engaged
in three practices that purportedly violate Alaska consumer
protection laws: (i) charging customers dealer fees and costs
(including document preparation fees) not disclosed in the
advertised price, (ii) failing to disclose the acquisition,
mechanical and accident history of used vehicles or whether the
vehicles were originally manufactured for sale in a foreign
country, and (iii) engaging in deception, misrepresentation and
fraud by providing to customers financing from third parties
without disclosing that the Company receives a fee or discount for
placing that loan (a "dealer reserve").  The lawsuit seeks
statutory damages of $500 for each violation or three times the
plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater, and attorney
fees and costs.  The plaintiffs sought class action certification.

Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits, the Company
engaged in settlement discussions with the State of Alaska through
its Office of Attorney General with respect to the first two
alleged illegal practices.  As a result of those discussions, the
Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court approval
and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the proposed
settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to intervene
and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to the state
Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.

The Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class (i) for the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes, and (iii) for those customers who
arranged their vehicle financing through the Company, on the basis
that the state's lawsuit against its dealerships did not address
the dealer reserve claim.  On
June 14, 2011, the Trial Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class without addressing either the merits of the claims
or the size of the classes.  Discovery in this case is ongoing.
The Company says it intends to defend the claims vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Lithia Motors, Inc., is an operator of automotive franchises and a
retailer of new and used vehicles and services.  The Company is
headquartered in Medford, Oregon.


LKQ CORP: Suit vs. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
LKQ Corporation is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several aftermarket product suppliers.  During the three-month
period ended March 31, 2012, the Company recognized a gain of $8.3
million resulting from settlements with certain of the defendants.
This gain was recorded as a reduction of Cost of Goods Sold on the
Company's Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income.
The class action is still pending against two defendants, the
results of which are not expected to be material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  If there
is a class settlement with (or a favorable judgment entered
against) either of the remaining defendants, the Company will
recognize the gain from such settlement or judgment when
substantially all uncertainties regarding its timing and amount
are resolved and realization is assured.

LKQ Corporation -- http://www.lkqcorp.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in Chicago, Illinois.  LKQ provides replacement
parts, components and systems needed to repair cars and trucks.


MADISON SQUARE: Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y. in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust suit filed against The Madison Square Garden Company
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York is in discovery phase, according to the company's May 3,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order largely
denying the motion to dismiss and the case is now in the discovery
phase. The Company intends to vigorously defend the

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the National Hockey League and certain NHL member clubs,
regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors.

The complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily
assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements
entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to
provide certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect
to the television and online distribution of live hockey games,
violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The complaints seek injunctive relief against the defendants'
continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages,
attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27,
2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes).

On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order largely
denying the motion to dismiss and the case is now in the discovery
phase. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims against
the Company. Management does not believe this matter will have a
material adverse effect on the Company.


MAKO SURGICAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge dismissed a securities class action lawsuit
against Mako Surgical Corp.

The complaint was filed in the Southern District of Florida in
May 2012 on behalf of shareholders who claimed that officials of
the Davie-based surgical robotics company misled them concerning
sales projections.  The lawsuit named Mako Surgical Chairman and
CEO Dr. Maurice Ferre and CFO Fritz LaPorte.

Mako Surgical's 2012 sales guidance, released in January of that
year, called for sales of 56 to 62 surgical robots.  When it
released its first quarter results in May 2012, the company said
it sold only four and reduced its annual sales projections.  Its
stock dropped by 43 percent soon after.

U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn dismissed the complaint on
May 15.

The judge ruled that Mako Surgical's 2012 sales projections were
accompanied by meaningful language that cautioned investors that
these "forward-looking statements" may not be on target.  This
cautionary language wasn't "boilerplate," as the plaintiffs
argued, because it detailed the kind of misfortunes that could
cause the company to miss its projections, the judge ruled.

"The warnings in the defendants' press releases and the referenced
SEC filings warned investors of precisely what happened here: that
projected system sales and procedures might be lower than
projected due to the economic downturn, variable sales and a
reluctance on the part of orthopedic surgeons to adopt the new
technology," the judge wrote.

Cohn also ruled that comments by Messrs. Ferre and LaPorte during
investor conference calls were protected as "forward-looking
statements."  There were no allegations in the complaint that
establish that Messrs. Ferre and LaPorte had actual knowledge that
the 2012 sales projections were false, the judge added.

However, the judge left the plaintiffs the option to file an
amended complaint by June 5.

Officials with New York law firm Labaton Sucharow, the attorneys
representing the plaintiffs, declined comment.

"Mako is pleased with Judge Cohn's order dismissing in its
entirety the putative class action against Mako," said Mako
Surgical Menashe Frank said.  "We are encouraged that this will
further enable Mako to focus on the hospitals, doctors and
patients we serve."

Mako Surgical was represented in the case by Holland & Knight in
Miami, with attorneys Louise McAlpin, Stephen P. Warren, Tracy Ann
Nichols, and Allison B. Kernisky.

A shareholder derivative lawsuit, with a group of shareholders
suing in place of the company, remains pending against Messrs.
Ferre, LaPorte and other Mako Surgical officials.  The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which also involves the
2012 sales projections.

The derivative lawsuit is also before Judge Cohn.

According to Mako Surgical's SEC filings, the company's board
formed a special committee of two independent directors in October
to review and investigate the claims raised in the derivative
lawsuit.  This process hasn't been completed.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. faces three securities suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

                          Barnicle Case

On February 7, 2013, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's
President and CEO, former CFO and CFO, were sued in a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York naming it and them as defendants and
entitled, Patrick Barnicle, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman,
Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CIV 925. The complaint
was filed by Patrick Barnacle for himself as plaintiff and,
purportedly, on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's
ordinary shares between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 (the
"Class Period"), and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false or misleading statements (or failed to
disclose certain facts) regarding the Company's business and
outlook. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's
fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.

       Ryan Case

On February 14, 2013, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's
President and CEO, former CFO and CFO, were sued in a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York naming it and them as defendants and
entitled, David R. Ryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman,
Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1047.

The factual allegations and legal claims asserted in the Ryan
complaint, as well as the relief sought and the proposed class and
class period in the Ryan complaint, are substantially the same as
in the Barnicle case.

          Petrov Case

On February 22, 2013, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's
President and CEO, former CFO and CFO, were sued in a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York naming it and them as defendants and
entitled, Valentin Petrov, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman,
Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1225.

The complaint was filed by Valentin Petrov for himself as
plaintiff and, purportedly, on behalf of persons purchasing the
Company's ordinary shares between April 19, 2012 and January 2,
2013 (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false or misleading statements (or failed to
disclose certain facts) regarding the Company's business and
outlook. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's
fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Case Stayed Pending N.Y. Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa
stayed a securities suit against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
pending the completion of similar cases in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On February 20, 2013 a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of  the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim").

The Israeli Claim was filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the
"Claimant").  The Israeli Claim alleges that the Company, the
board members, the Company's President and CEO, its former CFO and
its current CFO are responsible for making misleading statements
(or failing to disclose certain facts)  and filings to the public,
as a result of which the shares of the Company were allegedly
traded at a higher price than their true value during a period
commencing on April 19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and,
therefore, these parties are responsible for damages caused to the
purchasers of the Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
during this time.

The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court.

On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural
agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the
completion of the Barnicle, Ryan and Petrov cases. On April 24,
2013, the Israeli court approved this procedural agreement and
stayed the Israeli proceedings.


NAM TAI ELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13 CV
3371, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Nam Tai
between August 6, 2012 and April 26, 2013, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nam Tai securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 16, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Nam Tai is an electronics design and manufacturing services
provider to original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs").  The
Company manufactures cell phones, palm-sized PCs, personal digital
assistants, electronic dictionaries, calculators, digital camera
accessories, components including liquid crystal display modules
("LCMs") and panels, radio frequency modules, and flexible printed
circuit subassemblies.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
intense competition had forced the Company to lower its unit sales
prices, thereby threatening the Company's future profitability;
(2) anticipated cancellation and fluctuation of orders by its key
customers would cause it to halt capital investment into
technology platforms; (3) Due to declining margins and volatility,
the Company would have to halt its best quality LCM production
operations services in both its Shenzhen and Wuxi manufacturing
facilities in order to minimize further losses and preserve cash;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 29, 2013, the Company disclosed that customer orders for
its liquid crystal display modules were much lower than originally
anticipated.  The Company noted that it relies on a very small
number of customers forcing it to lower its prices to meet
customers' needs.  Furthermore, the Company disclosed that it was
considering halting its best quality LCM production operations
service in both its Shenzhen and Wuxi manufacturing facilities by
the end of June 2013 in order to minimize further losses and
preserve cash.  On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.58
per share, or over 31.6%, to close at $7.75 per share on April 29,
2013.

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


NETFLIX INC: Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs of a consolidated securities lawsuit filed an
amended consolidated complaint in March 2013, according to
Netflix, Inc.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012, and February 29, 2012, alleging
substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs.  The Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged violations
of the federal securities laws on June 26, 2012.  The Court
dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
February 13, 2013.  The Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013.  The first amended
consolidated complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between October 20, 2010, and October 24, 2011.  The
first amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
primarily regarding the Company's streaming business which led to
artificially inflated stock prices.  Management has determined a
potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its
current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of
such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably
estimable.

Headquartered in Los Gatos, California, Netflix Inc. --
http://www.netflix.com/-- is an Internet subscription service for
TV shows and movies.  The Company's subscribers can watch TV shows
and movies, streamed over the Internet to their TVs, computers and
mobile devices.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Sale to TSYS
-------------------------------------------------------
Netspend Holdings, Inc., is facing two putative class action
lawsuits pending in connection with the proposed acquisition of
the Company by Total System Services, Inc., according to
Netspend's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 25, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Bushansky v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al. (the "Bushansky
action") was filed in the District Court of Travis County, Texas.
On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, entitled Koehler v.
NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al. (the "Koehler action").

A third putative class action entitled Litwin v. NetSpend
Holdings, Inc. et al. was filed on February 22, 2013, in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, but was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff by order granted on March 1, 2013.

The Bushansky and Koehler actions name as defendants the Company,
the Company's Board of Directors ("Board"), TSYS, and General
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TSYS ("Sub"). Both
of these actions were brought individually and on behalf of a
putative class of the Company's stockholders, and each alleges
that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with TSYS's proposed acquisition of the Company by
depriving the Company's stockholders of the full and fair value of
their ownership interest in the Company.

Both actions further allege that the Company has failed to inform
the Company's stockholders of material facts regarding the
proposed acquisition.  Both actions additionally allege that the
Company, TSYS, and Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches by
the Board.

Both lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other
things, to enjoin consummation of TSYS's acquisition of the
Company, rescission of the related Merger Agreement, and an award
of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other
expenses. The Koehler action also seeks an award of compensatory
damages and/or rescissory damages.

Expedited discovery has been completed in the Koehler action and
the Court set a preliminary injunction hearing for May 10, 2013.
The plaintiff in the Bushansky action has agreed not to seek
expedited discovery or a preliminary injunction so long as a
preliminary injunction is sought by plaintiff in the Koehler
action, and the defendants agreed to provide the plaintiff in the
Bushansky action with the same discovery previously made available
in the Koehler action.

Accordingly, no additional discovery has been made in the
Bushansky action. The Company has not established reserves or
ranges of possible loss related to these proceedings because, at
this time, it has not determined that a loss is probable or that
the amount of any possible loss is reasonably estimable.


NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Paid Settlement in Consumer Suit in April
------------------------------------------------------------
Netspend Holdings, Inc., said in a May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that settlement amounts in a consumer suit
filed against the Company were paid in April 2013.

Frederick J. Baker ("Baker") filed a purported consumer class
action case against NetSpend, as well as one of its Issuing Banks
and card associations (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the U.S
District Court (the "Court") for the District of New Jersey in
November 2008 seeking damages and unspecified equitable relief.

In May 2009 Baker filed an amended complaint alleging that the
Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the
New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
(TCCWNA) and claiming unjust enrichment in connection with the
Defendants' alleged marketing, advertising, sale and post-sale
handling of NetSpend's gift card product in the State of New
Jersey.

In January 2012, the court granted Defendants' motion in part and
dismissed all claims except for the cause of action based on the
alleged violation of the CFA. NetSpend filed its answer and
affirmative defenses in February 2012.

NetSpend reached an agreement with the attorneys representing the
purported plaintiffs in this case to contribute approximately $0.1
million to a fund that would be used to reimburse the consumers
who may have been inadvertently overcharged and to reimburse the
attorneys representing the plaintiffs for up to $0.3 million in
fees. This settlement was approved by the Court in February 2013
and a final judgment was entered dismissing all claims in the
amended complaint with prejudice and upon the merits. The
settlement amounts were paid in April 2013.


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 4 Frontier 2013 Model Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:         May 29, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory:           Light Truck & Van
Notification type:     Compliance Mfr
System:                Electrical
Units affected:        4
Source of recall:      Transport Canada
Identification number: 2013183
TC ID number:          2013183

Certain vehicles may have been manufactured without an
immobilizer, and as a result may not comply with Canada Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 114 - Theft Protection and Rollaway
Prevention.  The lack of an immobilizer could increase the risk of
theft causing property damage.  Correction - Dealers will replace
the body control module and keys of affected vehicles.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   NISSAN    FRONTIER                2013


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Additional Smoking, Health Litigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
An additional 11 smoking and health cases were brought against
Philip Morris International Inc. on behalf of classes of
individual plaintiffs in Brazil and Canada, according to the
company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class
of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in
these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity,
failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause,
assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of
limitations.

As of May 1, 2013, there were a number of smoking and health cases
pending against the company, the company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees, as follows:

     (A) 71 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(28), Brazil (28), Canada (2), Chile (4), Costa Rica (2), Greece
(1), Italy (4), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared
with 76 such cases on May 1, 2012, and 93 cases on May 1, 2011;
and

     (B) 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 10 such
cases on May 1, 2012, and 11 such cases on May 1, 2011.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf
of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS")
nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the
health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-
related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and
the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the
trial court dismissed the case on the merits. This decision has
been appealed.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was
certified in 2005.

In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal
government would remain as a third party in the case. In November
2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party
claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12,
2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to last well into
2013 and possibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an
indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the
company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an
individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was
certified in 2005.

In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal
government would remain as a third party in the case. In November
2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party
claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12,
2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to last well into
2013 and possibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an
indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company , the company's
subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma,
and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues
the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company , the
company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary
motions are pending.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company ,
the company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA
and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company , the company's
subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from
the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date,
the company , the company's subsidiaries, and indemnitees have not
been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case
is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He
is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on
June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action.

In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June
12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class action.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and
other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
they do not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PHILIP MORRIS: May 2014 Hearing in "Israel, El-Roy" Lights Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
An oral hearing on an appeal by plaintiffs against a court ruling
denying class certification in the case Israel, El-Roy, et al.
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. is set for May 2014,
according to the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Lights Cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf
of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the
term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2013, there were three lights cases pending against
the company's subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:

     (A) 2 cases brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in
Israel, compared with 2 such cases on May 1, 2012 and May 1, 2011;
and

     (B) 1 case brought by an individual in the equivalent of
small claims courts in Italy, where the maximum damages are
approximately one thousand Euros per case, compared with 9 such
cases on May 1, 2012, and 10 such cases on May 1, 2011.

In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the company's
subsidiary and indemnitees (PM USA and former importer) are
defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming
that the class members were misled by the descriptor "lights" into
believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor
cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of
lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class
member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008
regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing on
class certification was completed in March 2011. In November 2012,
the court denied class certification and dismissed the individual
claims. Plaintiffs have appealed, and an oral hearing has been
scheduled for March 2014.

The claims in the second class action pending in Israel, Navon, et
al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against indemnitee
(our distributor) and other members of the industry are similar to
those in El-Roy, and the case was stayed pending a ruling on class
certification in El-Roy. In March 2013, the district court
dismissed the case because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their
intent to continue pursuing the case. Plaintiffs may appeal.


PHILIP MORRIS: Disputes Brazilian Plaintiffs' Right to Sue
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of Philip Morris Incorporated in a case by The Smoker
Health Defense Association in Brazil is currently before the
Federal Supreme Tribunal stating that the plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit, according to the company's May 3,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In February 2004, in a class action by The Smoker Health Defense
Association, the Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable
without hearing evidence. The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $500) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of
the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the
claim. Plaintiff has appealed. In addition, the defendants filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis
that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
This appeal is still pending.


PILOT FLYING J: Faces Another Class Action Over Fuel Rebate Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Regan, writing for newsnet5.com, reports that another class
action lawsuit was filed on May 17 in federal court in Pensacola,
Florida by a North Carolina trucker alleging Jimmy Haslam's Pilot
Flying J company cheated with fuel rebates.

Jerry Floyd operates his trucking company from his home base in
Alexander County, N.C. but according to court documents, "conducts
a substantial amount of business within the state of Florida."

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Haslam's company withheld "tens of
millions of dollars in diesel fuel price rebates and discounts
from customers since at least 2005."

Mr. Haslam's company now faces seven class action lawsuits in
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Illinois and Tennessee.
A spokesperson for Pilot Flying J predicted in the days following
the FBI raid that additional lawsuits would be filed and said the
company will review each and take appropriate action.

Mr. Haslam told trucking industry executives on May 16 that he
hoped companies would seek any money that might be owed to them
without resorting to lawsuits by filing claims directly with Pilot
Flying J.  He has consistently said he plans "to make this right."

At the same conference on May 16, Mr. Haslam admitted that at
least 250 trucking companies were shorted in some fashion,
according to his own internal audit.  But Mr. Haslam was quick to
add that "this does not mean anyone did anything wrong."

A federal probe was launched on April 15 in allegations that the
Knoxville, Tennessee-based company cheated truckers of promised
fuel rebates.

According to WATE.com, attorneys for Mr. Floyd filed the class-
action lawsuit on May 16 in U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Fla.

The documents allege that Pilot Flying J cost customers within the
jurisdiction of that court more than $5 million and claim that
there are hundreds, if not thousands, of potential customers that
could join the suit.

According to court documents, Mr. Floyd himself, "conducts a
substantial amount of his business within the state of Florida."

The suit takes note of the affidavit released by the FBI following
the April 15 raid which alleges that Pilot took advantage of
Spanish-speaking customers.

The suit cites a comment by a regional sales manager in which he
said, ". . . there is a language barrier.  So you can get away
with a little bit more because they know that they are not going
to understand everything that you say."


PIPER JAFFRAY: Under Antitrust, Securities Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies disclosed in its May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013, that the U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division, the SEC and various state attorneys general
are conducting broad investigations of numerous firms, including
the Company, for possible antitrust and securities violations in
connection with the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment
contracts and derivatives to municipal issuers from the early
1990s to date. These investigations commenced in November 2006.

In addition, several class action complaints were brought on
behalf of a proposed class of government entities that purchased
municipal derivatives. The complaints, which have been
consolidated into a single class action, allege antitrust
violations and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the multi-district litigation
rules.

Several California municipalities also brought separate class
action complaints in California federal court, and approximately
18 California municipalities and two New York municipalities filed
individual lawsuits that are not part of class actions, all of
which have been transferred to the Southern District of New York
and consolidated for pretrial purposes.

No loss contingency has been reflected in the Company's
consolidated financial statements as this contingency is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable at this time. Management is
currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss
for these matters because alleged damages have not been specified,
the proceedings remain in the early stages, there is uncertainty
as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the
ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant
factual issues to be resolved.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls 12,000 Sweet Lambie Crib Bumpers
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Pottery Barn Kids, a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc.,
of San Francisco, California; and manufacturer, Pure Mars, of
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 Sweet Lambie
Crib Bumpers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The thread in the decorative stitching on the bumper can loosen,
posing an entanglement hazard to infants.

The firm has received two reports of the decorative stitching
coming loose and entangling children, including reports of the
thread wrapping around a child's neck.  No serious injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves Pottery Barn Kids Sweet Lambie Bumpers
manufactured from April 2009 through July 2012.  The cotton
bumpers are padded and fit standard cribs.  Lambs in grass and
lambs with trees are embroidered on the interior and exterior of
the bumpers.  They were available in the colors pink, blue and
ivory/oatmeal.  Model number "708859," "708917" or "7988348" and
"Sweet Lambie Bumper" appear on a tag fastened to the bottom edge
of the bumpers.  The date of manufacture in MM/YYYY format is
printed on a tag attached to the bumper near the model number tag.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/B5Ng0r

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Pottery Barn Kids stores and catalogs and Pottery Barn Outlet
stores nationwide, and online at potterybarnkids.com from April
2009 through July 2012 for between $129 and $149.

Consumers should immediately check the tag on the bumper for the
month and year of manufacture and stop using the bumper if the
date is 04/2009 through 07/2012.  Consumers with recalled bumpers
should contact Pottery Barn Kids for instructions on how to return
the bumpers to receive a gift card in the amount of a full refund
or a replacement bumper and to receive free return shipping for
recalled bumpers.  Pottery Barn Kids may be reached toll-free at
(855) 323-5138, from 7:00 a.m. to midnight Eastern Time daily, or
online at http://www.potterybarnkids.com/and click on Safety
Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information.


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Zeus Shareholders Sue for Alleged Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riverbed Technology, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed by Zeus Technology
Ltd., shareholders in the Superior Court of the State of
California, according to Riverbed's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

Riverbed said, "In October 2012 we served the representative of
the Zeus shareholders, as lead defendant and proposed defendant
class representative for all other similarly situated former
shareholders of Zeus, with a lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, for declaratory relief.  The lawsuit
seeks declaratory judgment that, among other things, (a) Riverbed
is not in breach of the share purchase agreement, and (b) Riverbed
does not owe any acquisition-related contingent consideration
under the share purchase agreement because the necessary
conditions precedent to the payment of acquisition-related
contingent consideration did not occur."

"In November 2012, the representative of the Zeus shareholders
filed a cross-complaint against Riverbed and Riverbed Technology
Limited in the Superior Court of the State of California.  The
cross-complaint claims breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory
judgment that Riverbed has breached the share purchase agreement
and that the entire $27.0 million in contingent consideration is
payable to Zeus shareholders.

"We believe that the contention of the representative of the Zeus
shareholders is without merit and intend to vigorously defend our
determination.

"In November 2012 we received a grand jury subpoena issued by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The subpoena requests documents related to certain federal
government contracting matters, including a $19 million
transaction involving the sale of our products and services by a
Riverbed reseller to an agency of the federal government in 2009.
We are cooperating fully with this inquiry."


ROYAL CANADIAN: Declines Offer to Mediate
-----------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a lawyer representing 300 women who worked
for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police alleging harassment and
gender-based discrimination in a lawsuit says the national police
force is declining an offer to mediate.

"The RCMP indicated they have no interest to discuss settlement.
It comes as a big surprise to us," said Vancouver class action
lawyer David Klein.

But earlier this year, RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson's action plan
said the force would "expeditiously resolve, wherever appropriate,
outstanding harassment-related lawsuits."

On May 27, Mr. Klein said his clients want to see some solutions.

"They want the RCMP and the women themselves to be able to move
past this to settle," Mr. Klein said.

The allegations in the proposed class action lawsuit have not yet
been tested in court.

Mr. Klein made his comments as some Liberal MPs and Senators were
in Vancouver to hear from RCMP officers who have complained about
sexual harassment or bullying but were unable to testify at
parliamentary committees.

Some women were excluded from speaking in Parliament because of
their involvement in the ongoing legal case.

But others who are not involved in the legal proceeding also had
difficulties testifying.  Cpl. Roland Beaulieu said he had been
prevented from appearing at a Senate committee in Ottawa.
Mr. Beaulieu was informed that if he was well enough to travel to
Ottawa then he must be well enough to return to work.  He is on
stress leave suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

"I don't want to be fired.  I'm hoping by going public here, will
force management to deal with my issues," Mr. Beaulieu said on
May 17 in Vancouver.

Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell said he was appalled that some
Mounties suffering from post-traumatic stress and other issues
were not being heard.

"We had people who had been injured which we haven't been able to
have because the government won't let us call them before
parliamentary committee," Mr. Mitchell said.  "The take away is,
it's deeply, deeply damaging on a personal level."

Mounties told the panel May 17 the RCMP is broken, corrupt and
rife with misconduct.

"I've seen female members harassed because they are lesbians.
I've seen people picking up hookers and getting transferred and
promotions," said RCMP officer Peter Kennedy.

On May 17, the Senators and MPs listened carefully.

"Short of blowing up the RCMP from the top down, I'm not sure
after the things I've heard [Fri]day and earlier, if we are ever
going to be able to fix the RCMP," said Liberal MP Judy Sgro.

"All of these women were treated as they were just wallpaper, just
the pretty candy, and they had to be there for the abuse of their
superior officers," Ms. Sgro said.  "And because they didn't co-
operate, their lives were ruined."


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: No Class Claims in Boeing Workers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals mean that
prospective plaintiffs in a suit against Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc. by Boeing Company employees may file individual
claims not class claims.  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed a District Court's ruling that the case should not be
allowed to proceed as a class action.  The district court has now
set certain deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to bring
individual claims, according to Spirit AeroSystems' May 3, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex
Corporation and Boeing alleging age discrimination in the hiring
of employees by Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita commercial
division to Onex. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court
in Wichita, Kansas and seeks class-action status, an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in
punitive damages.

The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requires
Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the
employment decisions that were made by us with respect to former
employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly relate to
the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in
such employment decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted defendants'
dispositive motions, finding that the case should not be allowed
to proceed as a class action.  Following plaintiffs' appeal, on
August 27, 2012 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's ruling in all respects.  The district court has
now set certain deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to
bring individual claims.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Hearing Notice to Dismiss "Harkness" Sent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of a fairness hearing related to a motion by Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. for a dismissal from the lawsuit
Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al. have been sent to
class members, according to Spririt's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July 2007.

The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit
AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement
Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical
and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit
AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named
plaintiffs are 12 former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or
are employees of Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and general contract law and brought the case
as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The
putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or former
employees of Spirit.

The parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members
who have asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those
individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in
Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had
at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in
jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55,
and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims
against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, are
(1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine that
certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement "bridging
rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that were
allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing
and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully
transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early
retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits.

The plaintiffs initially sought a declaration that they are
entitled to the early retirement pension benefits and retiree
medical benefits, an injunction ordering that the defendants
provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of contract
claims and attorney fees.

Discovery is now complete and currently pending is a motion filed
jointly by plaintiffs and Spirit on September 25, 2012 to dismiss
all claims against Spirit with prejudice. Notices of a fairness
hearing related to Spirit's dismissal from this lawsuit have been
sent to class members.

Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities are not subject to the
motion and will remain pending in the litigation. Boeing has
notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to indemnification
from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may incur in the
Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset purchase
agreement from the Boeing Acquisition between Boeing and Spirit.
Spirit disputes Boeing's position on indemnity.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Order in Suit Over Benefit Plan Amendments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit relating to amendments in its
benefit plans, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

Headquartered in D/FW Airport, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- formerly known as Idearc, Inc., is a
yellow pages directory publisher in the United States.  The
Company's portfolio includes the Superpages directories,
Superpages.com, digital local search resource on both desktop and
mobile devices, the Superpages.com network, which is a digital
syndication network, and its Superpages direct mailers.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling in Appeal From ERISA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court decision in the appeal from
the dismissal of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of the Company's current
and former officers, directors and members of the Company's
Employee Benefit Committee.  The complaint attempts to recover
alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly
caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by
the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006,
to March 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants
wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock,
(ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition, (iii) the
defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged
the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to
monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  At this time, a class has
not been certified.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on June 22, 2010.  On March 16, 2011, the court granted
the Company defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint;
however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint.  The
Company defendants have filed another motion to dismiss the new
complaint.  On March 15, 2012, the court granted the Company
defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been completed.  Oral argument
was held on March 7, 2013, and the Company awaits the ruling of
the court.  The Company plans to honor its indemnification
obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants'
behalf.

Headquartered in D/FW Airport, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- formerly known as Idearc, Inc., is a
yellow pages directory publisher in the United States.  The
Company's portfolio includes the Superpages directories,
Superpages.com, digital local search resource on both desktop and
mobile devices, the Superpages.com network, which is a digital
syndication network, and its Superpages direct mailers.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to
the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

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

Headquartered in D/FW Airport, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- formerly known as Idearc, Inc., is a
yellow pages directory publisher in the United States.  The
Company's portfolio includes the Superpages directories,
Superpages.com, digital local search resource on both desktop and
mobile devices, the Superpages.com network, which is a digital
syndication network, and its Superpages direct mailers.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Inks Tentative Deal to Settle Suit vs. Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. entered into a tentative settlement in April 2013
to resolve a consolidated securities lawsuit against its officers,
according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

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

The parties entered into a tentative settlement of the matter on
April 1, 2013.  The Company plans to honor its indemnification
obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants'
behalf.

Headquartered in D/FW Airport, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- formerly known as Idearc, Inc., is a
yellow pages directory publisher in the United States.  The
Company's portfolio includes the Superpages directories,
Superpages.com, digital local search resource on both desktop and
mobile devices, the Superpages.com network, which is a digital
syndication network, and its Superpages direct mailers.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Suit vs. EBC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment motions remain pending in the class action
lawsuit involving SuperMedia, Inc.'s employee benefits committee,
according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon Communications Inc. employee benefits committee and
pension plans and the Company's employee benefits committee
("EBC") and pension plans.  All three named plaintiffs are
receiving the single life monthly annuity pension benefits.  All
complain that Verizon transferred them against their will from the
Verizon pension plans to the Company pension plans at or near the
Company's spin-off from Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both
the Verizon and Company defendants failed to provide requested
plan documents, which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory
penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act
("ERISA"); that both the Verizon and Company defendants breached
their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan
information; and other class action counts aimed solely at the
Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek class action status,
statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee
transfers.  The Company defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the entire complaint on March 10, 2010.

On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion
dismissing all the claims against the Company pension plans and
all of the claims against the Company's EBC relating to the
production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to
produce same.  The only claims remaining against the Company are
procedural ERISA claims against the Company's EBC. On November 1,
2010, the Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint.  On
November 4, 2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one
of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.
Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class
certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has
commenced. After obtaining permission from the court, the
plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a
new count against the Company's EBC.  The Company's EBC filed
another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and have filed a
summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the scheduling
order.  On March 26, 2012, the court denied the Company's EBC's
motion to dismiss.  The parties' summary judgments remain pending.
The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in D/FW Airport, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- formerly known as Idearc, Inc., is a
yellow pages directory publisher in the United States.  The
Company's portfolio includes the Superpages directories,
Superpages.com, digital local search resource on both desktop and
mobile devices, the Superpages.com network, which is a digital
syndication network, and its Superpages direct mailers.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Continues to Defend Various Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes S.A. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against class action lawsuits alleging various claims
in various jurisdictions in Brazil, according to the Company's
April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Company's subsidiaries are subject to a number of class action
claims where the risk of loss is regarded as probable.  These
claims are: (1) a lawsuit against TIM Celular S.A. in the State of
Rio de Janeiro challenging the Company's policy of charging a
retention fee in case of robbery of the clients' mobile device,
(2) a lawsuit against TIM Celular questioning the size of the
letters used in TIM Celular's advertising, (3) a lawsuit against
TIM Celular in the State of Minas Gerais challenging the Company's
policy of charging a retention fee when a client intends to
terminate the contract before the period specified in the contract
(when the client received a benefit, for example a discount on the
purchase of a mobile device) and (4) a lawsuit against TIM Celular
and other companies in the State of Piaui questioning the amount
of advertisements in a place in Teresina.

There are four main class actions against subsidiaries where the
risk of loss is regarded as being probable: (i) a lawsuit against
TIM Celular in the State of Bahia with the aim of obtaining a ban
on charging long-distance rates for calls originating and received
between the towns of Petrolina, in the State of Pernambuco, and
Juazeiro, in the State of Bahia, due to the existence of "state
border areas;" (ii) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of
Rio de Janeiro, involving the impossibility of charging a contract
termination penalty in the case of theft of handsets; (iii) a
lawsuit filed by the municipal consumer protection agency of
Chapeco, Santa Catarina against Intelig, which questions non-
compliance with article 61 of Anatel Resolution 85 (retroactive
charging); and (iv) a lawsuit filed by the Public Prosecutor's
Office in Uberlandia also questioning non-compliance with article
61 of Anatel Resolution 85 (retroactive charging).

The details of these class actions against subsidiaries where the
risk of loss is regarded as being possible are summarized as
follows: (i) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of
Pernambuco, challenging the company's policy of exchanging
defective handsets, which is allegedly in disagreement with the
manufacturer's warranty terms; (ii) an action filed against TIM
Celular, and others, in the State of Rio de Janeiro, by the Office
of Legal Aid, requiring that cell phones be exchanged in view of
their essential nature; (iii) an action filed against TIM Celular
in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, questioning the policy for
exchanging defective handsets and requiring the creation of
handset drop-off points for technical assistance in the company's
stores in that state (iv) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the
State of Rio Grande do Norte (Natal) questioning the quality of
the services provided and the network in that state; (v) a lawsuit
against TIM Celular in the State of Para, challenging the quality
of the service provided by the network in Sao Felix do Xingu,
Parauapebas, Maraba and Belem; (vi) lawsuits against TIM Celular
in the State of Maranhao, challenging the quality of the service
provided by the network in the following municipalities: Balsas,
Grajau, Coelho Neto, Vitorino Freire, Sao Luis, Magalhaes de
Almeida, Lago da Pedra, Eugenio Barros and Carolina; and (vii)
lawsuits against TIM Celular in the State of Ceara, challenging
the quality of the services provided and the network in Fortaleza,
Iguatu, Monsenhor Tabosa, Quiterianopolis, Ibiapina and Icapui;
(viii) lawsuits against TIM Celular in the State of Piaui,
challenging the quality of the services provided and the network
in that state; (ix) lawsuits against TIM Celular in the State of
Rondonia, challenging the quality of the services provided and of
the network in the municipality of Machadinho do Oeste (Vale do
Anari); (x) lawsuits against TIM Celular in the State of Amazonas,
challenging the quality of the services provided and of the
network in that state, in Manaus, Tabatinga, Humaita and Tefe;
(xi) lawsuits against TIM Celular in the State of Mato Grosso,
challenging the quality of the services provided and of the
network in Novo Sao Joaquim, Campinopolis and Nova Xavantina;
(xii) a lawsuit filed against TIM Celular in the State of
Pernambuco, especially in the municipalities of Araripina,
Ouricuri and Tabira; (xiii) lawsuits filed against TIM Celular in
the State of Alagoas, questioning the quality of the services and
the network in that State, especially in the municipalities of
Arapiraca and Maceio; (xiv) a lawsuit filed against TIM Celular
and other operators in the State of Sao Paulo, questioning the
service and network quality in Rio Claro (Ajapi District), as well
as a lawsuit filed against TIM Celular questioning the quality of
data services provided by TIM in Sao Paulo; (xv) a lawsuit filed
against TIM Celular in the State of Paraiba, questioning the
quality of the services and the network in Pombal; (xvi) a lawsuit
filed against TIM Celular in the State of Minas Gerais questioning
the quality of the services and the network in that state and two
specific lawsuits questioning the quality of network in Uberlandia
and another lawsuit in Juiz de Fora; (xvii) a lawsuit filed
against TIM Celular and other operators in the State of Rio Grande
do Sul requesting an expert investigation to verify the quality of
service and network in such state; (xviii) a lawsuit filed against
TIM Celular in the State of Santa Catarina questioning the quality
of service and network in such state and the existence of
relationship sectors in certain locations; (xix) two lawsuits
filed against TIM Celular in the State of Parana, questioning the
quality of services provided and of the network in that state;
(xx) a lawsuit filed against TIM Celular in the State of Parana,
questioning the quality of services provided and of the network in
the city of Maraba; (xxi) a lawsuit filed against TIM Celular,
challenging the long-distance charges levied on calls made in the
municipality of Bertioga -- State of Sao Paulo and in the
surrounding region; (xxii) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the
State of Rio de Janeiro, challenging the sending of SMS without
the consumer's prior consent; (xxiii) a lawsuit filed against TIM
Celular in the State of Rio de Janeiro challenging the charging of
amounts arising from contractual penalty for loss and theft of
devices; and (xxiv) a lawsuit filed by the State Prosecution
Office against TIM Celular challenging the sale of 3G broadband
service and its publicity in the State.

Regarding class actions involving Intelig, the risk of loss of
which is considered possible, the following is worth being
emphasized: (i) public civil lawsuit filed by the State of Rio de
Janeiro involving publicity in the company's building; (ii) public
civil lawsuits involving the charging of fees in bordering areas
and filed by the Prosecution Office of the States of Parana, Rio
de Janeiro and DF; and (iii) public civil lawsuits involving the
charging of fees after the regulated term provided for by ANATEL
in Chapeco, Cascavel, Uberlandia, Fortaleza, DF, Sao Paulo and
Recife.

Due to the fact that the lawsuits entail positive and negative
obligations and, taking into account the impossibility of
accurately quantifying probable future disbursements at the
current stage of the legal proceedings, no provisions have been
set up by Management regarding the contingencies.

TIM Participacoes S.A. -- http://www.tim.com.br/-- is a Brazilian
corporation headquartered in Rio de Janeiro.  The Company is a
provider of mobile telecommunication services in Brazil.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Pilots' Suit Transferred to Illinois Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Duffer filed a class-action complaint on February 8, 2013, on
behalf of himself and other Continental Airlines pilots who are
serving or have served in the United States Armed Services or
National Guard.  The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action for
(1) violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act; (2) violations of California's Military
and Veterans Code; and (3) negligence.

Before the Court is a motion to transfer venue filed by Airline
Defendants United Continental Holdings, Inc.; United Airlines,
Inc.; and Continental Airlines, Inc.  The Plaintiff has opposed
the Motion to Transfer Venue, and the Airline Defendants have
filed a reply.  Union Defendants Air Line Pilots Association Int'l
and The Continental Chapter of Air Line Pilots Association Int'l
have not filed a response to the Motion to Transfer Venue.

Also before the Court is a motion for relief from Civil Local Rule
83.3(c)(5) filed by ALPA, in which ALPA's would-be local counsel
seeks relief from the Court's rule requiring local counsel
associated with pro hac vice applicants to be physically located
in or near this judicial district.  The Airline Defendants filed a
notice of non-opposition to the Rule 83.3 Motion.  The Plaintiff
has not filed a response to the Rule 83.3 Motion.

After a careful review of the parties' submissions, District Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel granted the Airline Defendants' Motion to
Transfer Venue.  Judge Curiel directed the Clerk of Court to
transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois.

"While the Airline Defendants did not provide a specific list of
witnesses they intend to call at trial, the Court finds many of
the witnesses whose testimony would be relevant to this case are
located in the Northern District of Illinois, which is beyond this
Court's subpoena power. Conversely, the Court finds none of the
witnesses whose testimony would be relevant are located in this
district," Judge Curiel said.

"The public factors similarly tip in favor of transfer," he added.
"The Court agrees that Plaintiff's primary claim is his USERRA
claim, which presents a federal question, and which the Northern
District of Illinois is well-equipped to handle."

ALPA's Rule 83.3 Motion is denied as moot.

The case is MARK DUFFER, an individual on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT'L, an unknown
business entity; THE CONTINTENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE
PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT'L, an unknown business entity, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-0318-GPC-WVG, (S.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's May 17, 2013 order is available at
http://is.gd/W6aYemfrom Leagle.com.


VISA INC: Houston Council May Pursue Claims in Credit Card Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chron reports that Houston City Council on May 15 voted to hired
law firm Beck Redden to represent its interests in a pending class
action lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard for allegedly
conspiring to fix the fees they charge, in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

Every entity that accepts the credit cards, from retailers to
governments to hospitals, is impacted, City Attorney David Feldman
said.

Litigation has been pending on the issue since 2009, Mr. Feldman
said, and a group of class-action litigants have negotiated a
settlement with the credit card giants.  The period during which
the fees allegedly were fixed covers Jan. 1, 2004 to Nov. 28, 2012
(when the proposed settlement was reached).

The plaintiffs agreeing to settle for between 1 percent to
3 percent of the fees they paid generally are small entities with
less at stake than a city as large as Houston, or large retailers
such as Wal-Mart and Target.  These large plaintiffs have opted
out of the proposed settlement, Mr. Feldman said, and are
negotiating for a bigger payout.  Wal-Mart, he said, has decided
to purse its own separate lawsuit; the city is unlikely to take
that route.

City Council approval was needed so the firm could file papers
opting the city out of the proposed settlement and allowing it to
participate in the continuing negotiations, Mr. Feldman said.

"We can do better by being a part of a group of opts out, that
negotiates a separate settlement," Mr. Feldman said.  "Most of the
major retailers in the country have opted out, and any number of
governmental entities have also opted out.  Beck Redden represents
the largest group of objectors or opt-outs, so they've got some
leverage in negotiating a better deal."

Beck Redden will get 25 percent of what the city receives beyond
what it would have received had it agreed to the proposed class
action settlement.

City staff are still pulling data to learn exactly how much is at
stake.  Data gathered from one of the two banks that processes
credit card payments for the city shows that, in recent years,
Houston paid the firms about $500,000 in transaction fees annually
(though that figure excludes fees paid on credit card transactions
at parking meters).

"We could be talking about a fairly substantial number in the
actual amount of fees paid based on the use of these two cards by
citizens through these two banks over a period of nine years,"
Mr. Feldman said.

For the sake of some basic numbers, if we assume the city paid
annual similar fees through both banks during the entire period
during which the fees allegedly were fixed, that would mean $9
million in fees paid.  A 3 percent settlement would mean $270,000
received; a 5 percent deal, $450,000 (minus lawyers' fees).


VIVE LA FETE: Recalls 710 Children's Two-Piece Pajama Sets
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vive La Fete Inc., of Miami, Florida, announced a voluntary recall
of about 710 children's two-piece pajama sets.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Vive La Fete children's cotton or
cotton/polyester two-piece pajama sets with style numbers
HSH158BPL and HSH159BPL.  They were sold in children's sizes 6
months through size 12.  They consist of a long-sleeve shirt with
collar and buttons paired with matching full-length pants with
elastic waistband.  Pajama set style HSH158BPL is blue with a
white snowflake pattern.  Pajama set style HSH159BPL is red and
white gingham checkered pattern.  The style number is printed on a
white label located on the garment's hangtag.  There are two tags
sewn into the neckline. "VIVE LA FETE" is printed on the top tag.
The garment size and fiber content with the phrases "CARE ON
REVERSE" and "MADE IN EL SALVADOR" are printed on the bottom tag.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/hQpldW

The recalled products were manufactured in El Salvador and sold at
boutiques, children's specialty stores nationwide and online at
www.vivelafete.com from September 2012 to January 2013 for about
$40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pajamas and contact
Vive La Fete for instructions on how to receive a full refund.
Vive La Fete may be reached at (800) 535-7396 from 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, online at
http://www.vivelafete.com/and click on "Product Recall" at the
bottom of the page under the "Shopping With Us" section.


WAL-MART: Sued for Contractors' Labor Violations
------------------------------------------------
Canan Tasci, writing for Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, reports
that Walmart can be sued for being negligent in hiring contractors
that employ workers at their distribution centers, according to a
federal ruling.

Workers had filed the class-action lawsuit, Carrillo v. Schneider,
in November that alleges they have not been paid for all their
hours worked at rates required by state and federal law, and have
not been paid overtime premiums, among other issues.

"She said that we can proceed with our claims that Walmart owes a
duty directly to worker even though it has put these contractors
in as a buffer between it and the workers," said Michael Rubin, of
the firm Altshuler and Berzon in San Francisco, who represents the
plaintiff.

"And the duty is to is make sure that if it does hire a
contractor, the contractor is going to comply with the law, will
be well supervised and Walmart won't put any pressure on the
contractor to violate the workers right. "

Walmart's warehouse is operated by Schneider Logistics, Inc. and
Schneider hired the subcontractors Rogers-Premier Unloading
Services, LLC and Impact-Logistics, Inc.

This case goes against the subcontractors Premier and Impact, the
operator Schneider and ultimate customer Walmart, and is claiming
they share responsibility for the violations, Mr. Rubin said.

"Walmart is saying it is not responsible.  It's saying Schneider
and Premier and Impact is responsible.  Schneider is saying we're
not responsible and that Premier and Impact are responsible,"
Mr. Rubin said.

"Premier and Impact are saying we didn't do it and we don't have
enough money to pay the damages, but what's happening in the
modern American workplace is there are so many layers of
contractors and subcontractors that are set up to basically deny
responsibility but this is important because breaks though those
levels of deniability and allows us to go after the company that
benefits from the labor of the workers.  "The decision was issued
by Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California on May 13 and reflects workers employed at
three warehouses in Mira Loma.

Walmart officials said the action merely echoes the judge's
preliminary ruling in April and while they disagree the ruling
wasn't unexpected.

"So far, there have been no findings of fact as to the claims made
in the case nor if Walmart would be responsible for any part of
those claims, if proven true.  We continue to believe that
Schneider Logistics and its contractors are independently
responsible for managing their people and that the facts will
demonstrate that Walmart is not a joint employer of the
plaintiffs," said Dan Fogleman, spokesman for Walmart.

"That said, it is important to note that we hold all of our
service providers to high standards and it is our expectation that
the law is always followed.  "Experts say the ruling in the short
term will help employees who have been working in warehouses, like
Walmart, that provide goods, to seek justice and fair working
conditions.

"I think in the long term it sets a precedence for employers, and
I think certainly Walmart -- who is not the only major retailer
that uses warehouses to store their goods -- and that all major
corporations that do rely on warehouse workers that they need to
be held accountable for the working conditions in those
warehouses," said Ellen Reese, associate professor of sociology at
UC Riverside.

Reese led a study that showed labor subcontracting and lack of
employer accountability have fostered unsafe and unfair working
conditions in the Inland warehouse industry.

In 2010, 114,000 people were hired in warehouses in the Inland
Empire, according to the California Employment Development
Department.  This workforce is mostly Latino, of which about half
are immigrants.  Temporary workers who lack benefits and are paid
low wages do much of the work, according to the study.


WELLS FARGO: Plans Appeal to $203MM Award in Overdraft Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Gullo, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Wells Fargo
& Co. must pay customers $203 million for manipulating debit-card
transactions to boost overdraft fees, a federal judge in San
Francisco ruled, reinstating a 2010 damage award.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Wells Fargo's practice of
deceiving customers by posting debit transactions with the highest
dollar amount first, rather than posting transactions in the order
they occurred, was proven at trial.  The practice misled
consumers, who overdrew their accounts multiple times a day as a
result, plaintiff attorneys said in a 2007 class-action lawsuit.
The bank ended the practice in 2011.

Judge Alsup awarded customers $203 million at trial.  While a
federal appeals court threw out the award and ruled that the
bank's conduct was a pricing decision authorized under federal
law, it found that Wells Fargo was liable for fraud violations of
California's unfair competition law and sent the case back to
Judge Alsup to determine damages.

"Because Wells Fargo misrepresented the posting order and
overdraft charges to its customers, the appropriate form of
restitution is to restore the unexpected charges to Wells Fargo's
customers," Judge Alsup said in a May 14 order.  He also said
customers were entitled to interest on the award as of Oct. 25,
2010, the original date of the judgment.

Richele Messick, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, said the bank is
disappointed with the judge's decision.

"We don't believe that the ruling is in line with the facts of
this or the law and plan to appeal," she said.

The case is Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo, 07-5923, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: 9th Cir. Flips Remand Order in "Lopez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
a district court order remanding to state court the case,
KATHERINE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Wendy's International,
Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-55529.

The remand order came after the district court dismissed the last
remaining representative or class claims in the complaint.
Wendy's appealed the order of the district court.

According to the Ninth Circuit, in the context of diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, "post-filing
developments do not defeat jurisdiction if jurisdiction was
properly invoked as of the time of filing."  In this case, there
is no dispute that the district court had jurisdiction at the time
of removal.  Accordingly, the subsequent dismissal of the
representative and class action claims did not strip the district
court of jurisdiction.  The dismissal of these claims is not an
exception to the "general rule" of "once jurisdiction, always
jurisdiction."

A copy of the Appeals Court's May 17, 2013 Memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/KQr9C1from Leagle.com.


WIN LUCK: Recalls Lam Sheng Kee's Shrimp and Lobster Balls
----------------------------------------------------------
Win Luck Trading Inc. of Bayonne, New Jersey, is recalling all
lots of Lam Sheng Kee's 7-ounce packages of Shrimp Balls, Lobster
Balls, Fish Package Eggs and Fresh Fish Cakes because they may
contain undeclared eggs.  People who have allergies to eggs run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled Lam Sheng Kee's Shrimp Balls, Lobster Balls, Fish
Package Eggs and Fresh Fish Cakes were distributed in retail
stores in New York and West Virginia during January 2013 to March
2013.

The products come in 7 ounce, printed plastic packages with the
following codes:

   * Shrimp Balls - UPC 6949682804640
   * Lobster Balls - UPC 6949682804602
   * Fresh Fish Cakes - UPC 6949682804589
   * Fish Package Eggs - UPC 6949682804633

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm354555.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the egg-
containing product was distributed in packages that did not reveal
the presence of eggs.  Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by lack of translation of scientific name to
common name of Albumin.

Consumers who have purchased Lam Sheng Kee's 7 ounce packages of
Shrimp Balls, Lobster Balls, Fish Package Eggs and Fresh Fish
Cakes are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 201-
332-8878, (Monday to Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time
Zone).


YELP INC: No Hearing Yet on Appeal Over Dismissal of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against Yelp Inc. over alleged business law
violations are appealing the dismissal of the case.  The appeal
has not yet been heard, according to the company's May 3, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In February and March 2010, the Company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the Company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on its platform to coerce local businesses to
buy its advertising products.

These cases were subsequently consolidated in an action asserting
claims for violation of the California Business & Professions
Code, extortion and attempted extortion based on the conduct they
allege and seeking monetary relief in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief. In October 2011, the court dismissed this
consolidated action with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, but the appeal has not yet been heard. Due to the
preliminary nature of this potential appeal, the Company is unable
to reasonably estimate either the probability of incurring a loss
or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from an appeal.


* Supreme Court Issues Corporation-Friendly Decisions
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Valania, writing for Huffington Post, reports that on the
morning of March 27, the corporations finally won their war on the
people.  A little after 10 a.m., before hearing oral arguments on
a same-sex marriage lawsuit that burned up all the media oxygen
that day, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court
was throwing out an anti-trust class action lawsuit brought
against Comcast by two million cable subscribers.  It was the
other shoe dropping in a pair of decisions that will have a
profoundly debilitating effect on the average citizen's capacity
to seek judicial remedies for the destructive and/or
discriminatory actions of giant corporations.

The first shoe was Walmart v. Dukes, a 2011 sexual discrimination
class action lawsuit brought against Walmart by 1.4 million of its
female employees, which SCOTUS also threw out claiming that the
plaintiffs did not have enough in common for a class action suit
despite the fact that they were all A) Walmart employees B)
females and C) alleging Walmart discriminated against them based
on their gender.

By throwing out the Comcast suit -- again claiming that the two
million plaintiffs didn't have enough in common to qualify for
class action despite the fact that they were all Comcast
subscribers complaining that the cable giant's monopolistic
practices resulted in poor service and artificially high cable
rates -- and doubling down on Walmart v. Dukes, SCOTUS has
effectively ended class action lawsuits in this country for at
least a generation, if not forever, and with it the last line of
defense consumers have against the profit-driven predations of
ginormous corporations.

Class action lawsuits enable wronged people of little or no means,
who otherwise would never be able to sustain, let alone initiate,
legal action against corporate America, with its bottomless
pockets and legions of legal eagle shock troops, to seek relief in
the courts.  In other words, they give David a fighting chance at
bringing down Goliath.

Over the years class action lawsuits have profoundly changed
American society, inarguably for the better.  Class action
lawsuits are the reason public school classrooms are no longer
segregated. Class action lawsuits are the reason Big Tobacco can
no longer market cigarettes to children.  Class action lawsuits
are the reason buildings are no longer larded with asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are the reason schools and subdivisions are
no longer built on top of toxic waste dumps (see Love Canal).
Class action lawsuits are the reason sexual harassment and racial
profiling are actionable.  Class action lawsuits are the reason
credit card companies can no longer demand confiscatory interest
rates from card holders.  Class action lawsuits are the reason
soldiers no longer have to lie about their sexual orientation if
they want to serve their country.  Class action lawsuits are the
reason states can no longer sterilize poor women against their
will.  Class action lawsuits are the reason employers can't
discriminate on the basis of sex.

Or at least they couldn't up until 2011.

That the Roberts Court would side with Comcast and Walmart over
the citizenry should really come as no surprise.  An exhaustive
study recently published in the Minnesota Law Review finds that
the Roberts Court is the most business-friendly of any court in at
least the last 65 years, declaring "the Roberts court is indeed
highly pro-business -- the conservatives extremely so and the
liberals only moderately liberal."  The study ranked the 36
justices who served on the court over the last 65 years by the
preponderance of their pro-business votes.  All five of the
Roberts Court's conservatives ranked in the top 10.  More
alarmingly, the study found that, based on their voting record,
the top two justices most likely to vote in favor of big business
-- out of all the Supreme court justices that have sat on the
bench since 1946 -- are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel
A. Alito Jr.

There was a time when being 'business-friendly' meant giving
corporations a leg-up and a level playing field because doing so
creates jobs and bolsters the economy.  Today 'business-friendly'
means letting corporations socialize their costs while privatizing
their profits.  It means letting corporation literally write the
laws that govern them.  It means rolling back regulations and de-
fanging oversight that protect consumers -- not to mention the air
they breathe and the water they drink and the children they raise
-- from the toxic excesses of capitalism's omnivorous pursuit of
profit no matter the cost.  When we say 'business friendly' what
we are really talking about is corporatism.  The Comcast decision
is yet another damning indicator that we no longer live in a
functioning democracy where all men are created equal and treated
as such by the rule of law, that while we do technically elect our
leaders real choice is just a mirage, that we now live in a
corporatocracy where government is of the corporations, by the
corporations and for the corporations.  As such, we would do well
to heed the wise words of a man who once said: "Fascism should
more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of
state and corporate power."  And he would know, his name was
Benito Mussolini.


                             *********

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  * * *