CAR_Public/130604.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 109

                             Headlines



AARON'S INC: Parties File Countermotions in Privacy Breach Suit
AARON'S INC: To File Motion to Junk Calif. Privacy Violation Suit
AK STEEL: Appeals Ruling Over Liability in ERISA Lawsuit
AK STEEL: Court Mulls Whether "Lipker" Rulings Apply to "Patrick"
AK STEEL: Certification Motions in Antitrust Suit Pending

AK STEEL: Retirees Accord Requires $30.8MM VEBA Trust Payments
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: May 30 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Two Claims for Matrix Benefits Affirmed
APPLE INC: Court Preliminarily Approves In-App Class Settlement
ARLINGTON ASSET: "Hildene" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Suit

BEHRINGER HARVARD: N.D. Tex. Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suit
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Suit Over Drug Chemicals Pending in D.C.
CITIGROUP INC: July 23 Fairness Hearing of $730MM Settlement
CITIGROUP INC: MBS & CDO Investors File Additional Complaints
CITIGROUP INC: "Beach" Plaintiffs Amend Suit & Add Defendants

CITIGROUP INC: Dismissal of Auction Rate Securities Suits Upheld
CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Junks Several Claims in LIBOR MDL
CITIGROUP INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over Yen LIBOR
COMCAST CABLE: Court Dismisses Customer Class Action Suit
COMSCORE INC: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Suit

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Ramtron Acquisition
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Seeks Dismissal of "Weber" Suit
DISH NETWORK: "Neuls" Class Suit Transferred to Colorado
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeals Certification of Overdraft Fees Suit
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeals Class Cert. in Interest Calculation Suit

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Has MOU to Settle Suit Over Citizens Merger
GAGS AND GAMES: Gets Prelim. Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Files New Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
HEALTH NET: Motion to Dismiss Confidentiality Suit Pending
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Dynegy Shareholders' Suit in Abeyance

K12 INC: July 19 Final Hearing on $6.75M Settlement
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Mo. Court Yet to Rule in ARCO Pipeline Suit
MERITOR INC: Makes Settlement Payment in Filter Price Fixing Suit
OLD NATIONAL: Suit Against Overdraft Fees Stayed Pending Appeal
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Cases Over Parlux Merger Junked, Abandoned

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Bank Still Faces Suit Over Debit Card
PITNEY BOWES: Securities Lawsuit by NECA-IBEW Now Closed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Army Veterans' Suit Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" ERISA Suit Remains Stayed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Nixing of Beneficiaries' Suit Affirmed

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ill. Beneficiaries Appeal Suit's Dismissal
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: NJ Court Maintains No Class in "Clark" Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.J.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Agents' Case
REPUBLIC INSURANCE: HANO Compromised Claims in Johnson Suit

SOLTA MEDICAL: In Mediation to Settle TCPA Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Fighting "Garza" Owner-Operator Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Anticipates Arbitration in "Sheer" Lawsuit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Rudsell" & "Burnell" Wage Suits
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Enters Mediation in "Ridderbush" Wage Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Face Wash. Overtime Lawsuit
TECO ENERGY: No Ruling Yet in Suit v. PGS Over 2010 Power Outage
TENNESSEE VALLEY: In Mediation Over TVARS Beneficiaries' Suit
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Miss. Residents Seek to Revive Katrina Suit
TETRA TECH: BPR Sued Over Alleged Collusion with City of Montreal

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dentists Denied Certification in Pay Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Appeals Certification of Underwriters' Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Triple-S Salud Faces Ala. Antitrust Lawsuit
U.S. BANCORP: Visa Litigation Liability Stands at $65MM
UMG RECORDINGS: Court Rules on Joint Discovery Dispute Letter

UNILEVER UNITED: Has Until June 12 to Respond to Maxwell Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cold-FX Suit Certification Hearing Set
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Inks MOU to Settle Labor Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in Ariz. Dismissed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Has MOU in "Obagi" Securities Suits

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Hearing Set in Antitrust Suit
WELLCARE HEALTH: Stock Suit Accord Contains Contingent Payments
YRC WORLDWIDE: Reaches Accord to Settle "Bryant" Securities Suit


                             *********


AARON'S INC: Parties File Countermotions in Privacy Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. has opposed a motion by plaintiffs alleging privacy
law violations for leave to file a third amended complaint,
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 Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware,
LLC., filed on May 16, 2011 in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),
plaintiffs allege that the Company and its franchisees knowingly
violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act
through its use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent."

Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. The
District Court dismissed the Company from the lawsuit on March 20,
2012. On September 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint against the Company and its franchisee Aspen Way
Enterprises, alleging, among other claims, invasion of privacy,
interception of electronic communications in violation of the
Federal Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and vicarious liability claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in connection with the
allegations of the amended complaint. On October 15, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
still remains pending. On February 27, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave of the court to file a third amended complaint
against the Company. The proposed third amended complaint asserts
the same claims against Aaron's as the second amended complaint
but also adds a request for injunction and names certain Aaron's
franchisees as defendants. The Company has opposed plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Company's
pending motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, as well as
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the third amended complaint,
is before the Court for review.


AARON'S INC: To File Motion to Junk Calif. Privacy Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. removed a suit alleging privacy violation from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the federal court and plans to file
a motion to dismiss, 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 Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims
against the Company and its franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software and/or
similar software and/or devices.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in
connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are
also seeking certification of a putative California class.

Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the Byrd
litigation. On April 18, 2013, the Company timely removed this
matter to federal court. The Company plans to file a motion to
dismiss.


AK STEEL: Appeals Ruling Over Liability in ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by AK Steel Holding Corporation against rulings with
related to liability in a suit over its pension plan is before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 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 October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.

The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits
to him and the other class members.

The plaintiff and the other purportedly similarly situated
individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed suit were excluded
by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation previously reported
and now resolved (the class action litigation filed January 2,
2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases of claims they
had executed in favor of the Company.

There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the
prior litigation and the potential additional distributions to
them at issue in the litigation total approximately $3.0 million,
plus potential interest. The defendants filed their answer to the
complaint on March 22, 2010. On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff
filed his motion for class certification.

On January 24, 2011, that motion was granted. On March 15, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. After
being fully briefed, that motion was granted on June 27, 2011.

On October 12, 2011, the court issued an opinion addressing the
issue of pre-judgment interest in which it held that pre-judgment
interest should be calculated using the statutory rate under 28
U.S.C. Section 1961(a). On December 12, 2011, the Court entered a
final judgment in an amount slightly in excess of $3.0 million,
which includes pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate through
that date. The defendants have filed an appeal from that final
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On March 28, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which
it upheld the District Court's decision with respect to liability.
The Court of Appeals further reversed and remanded the District
Court's decision with respect to pre-judgment interest. Defendants
intend to continue to contest this matter vigorously.

On April 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion for rehearing with
the Court of Appeals. That motion is pending. If the motion for
rehearing is denied, and depending upon the new rate for pre-
judgment interest established by the District Court, the Company
estimates that the amount of the judgment could increase by $1.0
million or more. Because the final judgment, if any, will be paid
out of the Company's pension assets, the Company has not recorded
an accrual or contingencies related to this matter. The Company
may be required to increase its pension obligation to reflect the
effects of an adverse outcome.


AK STEEL: Court Mulls Whether "Lipker" Rulings Apply to "Patrick"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against AK Steel Holding Corporation are
awaiting a ruling by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on whether the pension plan
interpretation issues in the Lipker Litigation are applicable in
the Patrick Litigation, 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 October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681 (the "Patrick Litigation").

Like the complaint in similar litigation previously reported and
now resolved (the action filed May 27, 2009 by Margaret A. Lipker,
hereinafter referred to as the "Lipker Litigation"), the complaint
in the Patrick Litigation alleges that the defendants incorrectly
calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid
to the plaintiffs under an applicable pension plan.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue
of whether the applicable plan language had been properly
interpreted.

On September 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned
to the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied.

On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment
to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation. The
plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification and that
motion was granted on October 27, 2008. The case proceeded
thereafter with respect to discovery on the issue of damages.

In November 2011 the plaintiffs submitted an expert report in
which their expert contends that the total damages, excluding
interest, for the class could total as much as $28.9 million. The
defendants believe that the damage calculation in the plaintiffs'
expert report is incorrect and intend to contest that calculation.

Among other bases for contesting the expert report in the Patrick
Litigation, the defendants believe that it is substantially based
on incomplete and/or inaccurate information concerning the widow's
or widower's benefit to which each surviving spouse would be
entitled from the Social Security Administration. That information
is essential to the calculation of plaintiffs' alleged damages and
can only be obtained from the Social Security Administration, but
has not yet been obtained in full by plaintiffs. Until that
information has been obtained in full, AK Steel believes it is not
possible to reliably or accurately determine the plaintiffs'
alleged damages.

Trial with respect to damages previously was scheduled to begin
January 14, 2013, but that date was vacated at the request of
defendants in light of the decision issued in AK Steel's favor in
the Lipker Litigation. Defendants have filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with the District Court in the Patrick Litigation
on the ground that the plan interpretation issues in the Lipker
Litigation and the Patrick Litigation are materially the same and
that the Sixth Circuit decision issued in AK Steel's favor in the
Lipker Litigation likewise requires a decision in favor of the
defendants in the Patrick Litigation. Plaintiffs oppose AK Steel's
Motion for Reconsideration. That motion has been fully briefed by
the parties and oral argument occurred on February 20, 2013. The
parties are awaiting a decision by the District Court.

If judgment is entered in favor of defendants pursuant to the
Motion for Reconsideration, that would conclude the Patrick
Litigation without any liability on the part of defendants,
subject to plaintiffs' right of appeal. If judgment is not entered
in favor of defendants, it is expected that the District Court
will reschedule the damage trial previously scheduled for January
14, 2013, in which case defendants would continue to contest this
matter vigorously.


AK STEEL: Certification Motions in Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Motions and countermotions are pending on the issue of whether a
class should be certified in an antitrust suit filed by purchasers
of steel products from AK Steel Holding Corporation,
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 and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Illinois. That motion was granted on March 28, 2012. The
plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which
claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.

The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with
respect to steel products in the United States. Discovery has
commenced. On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification. On February 28, 2013, the
defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for
class certification and motions to exclude the opinions of the
plaintiffs' experts. The motion for class certification and the
motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts remain
pending. No trial date has been set. AK Holding intends to contest
this matter vigorously.

To date, discovery in this action has proceeded only with respect
to issues relating to class certification.


AK STEEL: Retirees Accord Requires $30.8MM VEBA Trust Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation expects to contribute $181.5 million
to the master pension trust during 2013.  Of this total, $30.0
million was made in the first quarter of 2013 and $41.3 million
was made in April 2013, leaving $110.2 million to be made during
the second half of 2013, 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 expects to make payments to Voluntary Employees
Beneficiary Association ("VEBA") trusts of $30.8 million in 2013
pursuant to settlements of class actions filed on behalf of
certain retirees from the Company's Butler Works and Zanesville
Works relating to the Company's OPEB obligations to such retirees.

Based on current actuarial valuations, the Company estimates that
its required annual pension contributions will be approximately
$210.0 million in 2014 and $125.0 million in 2015.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: May 30 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff in the
securities suit filed against Align Technology, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California was
scheduled for May 30, 2013, 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 November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's
former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between April 23, 2012 and October 17, 2012
( the "Securities Action").

The complaint alleges that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the purported
class period the company reported income and earnings were
materially overstated because of a failure to timely write down
goodwill related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent
Holdings, Inc., and that defendants made allegedly false
statements concerning forecasts.

The complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and attorney's fees. The hearing on the motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff is currently scheduled for May 30th,
2013. Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.  Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of
loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Two Claims for Matrix Benefits Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2013, District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, issued two
memoranda in the case captioned In Re Diet Drugs
(Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability
Litigation, which relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL No. 1203, Civil Action No.
99-20593, in the United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

TaJuan Stout-Mitchell, a class member under the Diet Drug
Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks
benefits from the AHP Settlement Trust.  The Court concluded that
claimant has not met her burden of proving that there is a
reasonable medical basis for finding that she had moderate mitral
regurgitation. Therefore, the Court will affirm the Trust's denial
of Ms. Stout-Mitchell's claim for Matrix A-1 benefits.  A copy of
the May 2, 2013, Memorandum in Support of Separate Pretrial Order
No. 9053 is available at http://is.gd/HAn6S5from Leagle.com.

Joyce A. Thralls, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide
Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from
the AHP Settlement Trust.  The Court concluded that the claimant
has not met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable
medical basis for finding that she had moderate mitral
regurgitation. Therefore, the Court will affirm the Trust's denial
of the claim of Ms. Thralls for Matrix Benefits and the related
derivative claims submitted by her spouse and child.  A copy of
the May 2, 2013, Memorandum in Support of Separate Pretrial Order
is available at http://is.gd/VjF0arfrom Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Court Preliminarily Approves In-App Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila issued a May 2, 2013, Order
Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the case In Re Apple In-App Purchase Litigation,
Case No. 5:11-cv-01758 EJD, in United States District Court, N.D.
California, San Jose Division.

The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement was filed by representative Plaintiffs Garen Meguerian,
Lauren Scott, Kathleen Koffman, Heather Silversmith and Twilah
Monroe.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on June 16, 2011,
against Defendant Apple, Inc., involves those free gaming Apps
that are targeted at children.  Plaintiffs are parents whose minor
children who were able to purchase virtual "Game Currency" within
free gaming Apps without the knowledge or authorization of a
parent.

Among others, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class action
for settlement purposes only; appointed plaintiffs Garen
Meguerian, Lauren Scott, Kathleen Koffman, Heather Silversmith and
Twilah Monroe as adequate class representatives for settlement
purposes only; and appointed Simon B. Paris and Patrick Howard of
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., and Michael J. Boni
and Joshua D. Snyder of Boni & Jack as
co-lead counsel for the settlement class.

The hearing on final approval of class action settlement is
scheduled for October 18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the May 2, 2013, Order is available at
http://is.gd/mqAGSifrom Leagle.com


ARLINGTON ASSET: "Hildene" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit lodged by Hildene Capital Management, LLC
against Arlington Asset Investment Corp. filed a Stipulation of
Voluntary Dismissal, according to Arlington Asset Investment's May
3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Voluntary
Dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice.


BEHRINGER HARVARD: N.D. Tex. Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) consolidated two
securities suits filed against Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc.,
according to Behringer's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On each of September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  On January
4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the Court. The
plaintiffs purport to file the suit individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, referred to herein as "Plaintiffs."

The company disclosed: "Plaintiffs named us, Behringer Harvard
Holdings, LLC, our previous sponsor, as well as the directors at
the time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S.
Aisner, Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge
(individually a Director and collectively the Directors) and Scott
W. Fordham, the Company's President and Chief Financial Officer,
and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting Officer
(collectively, the Officers, as defendants. In the amended
complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers were dismissed
from the consolidated suit."

"Plaintiffs allege that the Directors each individually breached
various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and
(e) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities
law in connection with (1) the recommendations made to the
shareholders in response to certain tender offers made by CMG
Partners, LLC and its affiliates and (2) the solicitation of
proxies for our annual meeting of shareholders held on June 24,
2011. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants were unjustly
enriched by the purported failures to provide complete and
accurate disclosure regarding, among other things, the value of
our common stock and the source of funds used to pay
distributions.

"Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) that the court declare
the proxy to be materially false and misleading; (2) that the
filings on Schedule 14D-9 were false and misleading; (3) that the
defendants' conduct be declared to be in violation of law; (4)
that the authorization secured pursuant to the proxy be found null
and void and that we be required to re-solicit a shareholder vote
pursuant to court supervision and court approved proxy materials;
(5) that the defendants have violated their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders who purchased our shares from February 19, 2003,
to the present; (6) that the defendants be required to account to
Plaintiffs for damages suffered by Plaintiffs; and (7) that
Plaintiffs be awarded costs of the action including reasonable
allowance for attorneys and experts fees.

"Neither we nor any of the other defendants believe the
consolidated suit has merit and each intend to defend it
vigorously."


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Suit Over Drug Chemicals Pending in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against Cambrex Corporation over the
pharmaceutical ingredients Lorazepam and Clorazepate are awaiting
a ruling on the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction over
certain self-funded customer plaintiffs, 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 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").

Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys General and
class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state
courts.  The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between
the Company and Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical
ingredients (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200, payable jointly and severally, and
also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount
of $16,709.

In addition, at the time, the District Court ruled that the
defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500 in
prejudgment interest.  The case is currently pending before the
District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of
Appeals where briefing related to whether the court has
jurisdiction over certain self-funded customer plaintiffs has been
completed and the parties are currently waiting for a ruling by
the court.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release
and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related
litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate,
as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter.
Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $66,632.  In the event of a
final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment
required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity
described above.


CITIGROUP INC: July 23 Fairness Hearing of $730MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for a $730 million settlement of Citigroup.
Inc. of the case In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation is set
for July 23, 2013, 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 April 8, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York held a fairness hearing in In Re
Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation. Additional information
relating to this action is publicly available in court filings
under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Stein, J.).

On March 25, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order preliminarily
approving the parties' proposed settlement of In Re Citigroup Inc.
Bond Litigation, pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $730 million
in exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the
settlement class.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2013. Additional
information relating to this action is publicly available in court
filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9522
(S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: MBS & CDO Investors File Additional Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Additional complaints have been filed by purchasers of Mortgage-
Backed Securities and Collateralized Debt Obligations sold or
underwritten by Citigroup Inc., 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 aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue
in the pending suits, including claims that have been dismissed
but are still subject to appeal or otherwise not finally resolved,
is approximately $12 billion, and the aggregate original purchase
amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with
investors threatening litigation is approximately $6 billion.

On January 18, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the
New York Supreme Court's order granting in part and denying in
part defendants' motion to dismiss in Loreley Financing (Jersey)
No. 3 Ltd., et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., et al.
Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 650212/2012
(N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Oing, J.).

On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied defendants' petition for review of the
district court's October 15, 2012 order granting lead plaintiffs'
amended motion for class certification in New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund V. Residential Capital LLC, et al. Plaintiffs allege
federal securities law claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential
Accredited Loans, Inc. CGMI is named as an underwriter defendant.
Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 08 CV 8781
(S.D.N.Y.) (Baer, J.).

On April 5, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied defendants' appeal from the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss in Federal Housing Finance
Agency v. UBS Americas, Inc., et al., a parallel case to Federal
Housing Finance Agency v. Ally Financial Inc., et al., Federal
Housing Finance Agency v. Citigroup Inc., et al., and Federal
Housing Finance Agency v. JPmorgan Chase & Co., et al. Additional
information relating to these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 5201, 6188, 6196
and 7010 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.) and 12-2547-cv (2d Cir.).

On April 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee,
filed a complaint against Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.,
seeking to enforce contractual repurchase claims in connection
with at least 1,267 loans that were securitized into CMLTI 2007-
AMC3. Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2843
(S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: "Beach" Plaintiffs Amend Suit & Add Defendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed this update about the Alternative
Investment Fund-Related Litigation on its May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013: "In January 2013, a second amended
class action complaint was filed in Beach v. Citigroup Alternative
Investments LLC, which added Citigroup and CSO Partners Limited
(now named CCA Credit Europe Limited), among others, as
defendants. Additional information concerning this action is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12
Civ. 7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.)."


CITIGROUP INC: Dismissal of Auction Rate Securities Suits Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed this update about the Auction Rate
Securities-Related Litigation on its May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013: "On March 5, 2013, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of two putative class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers and issuers of auction rate securities for alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Additional information
concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings
under the docket numbers 10-0722-cv and 10-0867-cv (2d Cir.)."


CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Junks Several Claims in LIBOR MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York,
issued an opinion and order in the In Re Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation (the LIBOR MDL) dismissing
several claims except the plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act
claims, according to Citigroup Inc.'s May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 29, 2013, the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, U.S.
District Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued an
opinion and order in the multi-district litigation proceeding
captioned In Re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation (the LIBOR MDL) with respect to all actions
consolidated into that proceeding as of June 29, 2012, dismissing
the plaintiffs' federal and state antitrust claims, RICO claims,
and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing
certain of the plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act claims to
proceed. Additional information concerning the LIBOR MDL
proceeding is publicly available in court filings under docket
number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.).

Three additional actions have been commenced against Citigroup and
Citibank, N.A., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks: (i) a
putative class action on behalf of direct purchasers of bonds tied
to USD LIBOR; (ii) an individual action brought by certain members
of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange; and (iii) an individual action
brought by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions allege that the panel bank
defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act
and/or the Commodity Exchange Act. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Company also asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract, and
tortious interference with contract.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and, where authorized by
statute, treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional
information concerning these actions is publicly available in
court filings under docket numbers 1:13-cv-1456 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.), 1:13-cv-1700 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and 1:13-
cv-342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.).

In addition, various Charles Schwab entities that previously
brought actions consolidated in the LIBOR MDL have commenced an
additional individual action in California state court against
Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as other USD LIBOR panel
banks. The Schwab entities assert that the defendants manipulated
LIBOR in violation of federal securities laws, as well as
California state law and common law, and seek compensatory
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and rescission of their
contracts with the defendants. Additional information concerning
this action is publicly available in court filings under docket
number CGC-13-531016 (Calif. Sup. Ct.).


CITIGROUP INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over Yen LIBOR
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2013, plaintiff in Laydon V. Mizuho Bank Ltd. et al.,
which is not part of In Re Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, filed a Second Amended Complaint, according
Citigroup Inc.'s May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants, including Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup, Citibank Japan Ltd. and Citigroup Global Markets Japan
Inc., manipulated Japanese Yen LIBOR and TIBOR in violation of the
Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act.

The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims under these acts and
for unjust enrichment on behalf of a class of persons and entities
that engaged in U.S.-based transactions in Euroyen TIBOR futures
contracts between January 2006 and December 2010. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under docket number 12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).


COMCAST CABLE: Court Dismisses Customer Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jan E. Dubois dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction the lawsuit captioned DATASCOPE ANAYLTICS, LLC;
HANSEN IP LAW, PLLC; and ROBBIE SIMMONS, Individually and on
behalf of class of similarly situated entities, Plaintiffs, v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
13-608, (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs Datascope Analytics, LLC, Hansen IP Law, PLLC, and
Robbie Simmons filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent a
class of Comcast Business Class Service customers who entered into
Business Class Services contracts with defendant Comcast Cable
Communications, Inc. for voice and/or internet services.  The
Plaintiffs claim the defendant charges Business Class Services
customers fees contrary to their contracts, including an Early
Termination Fee after the initial service term is completed, and
an Internet Equipment Fee in excess of the amount specified in the
contracts.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class Complaint.

The controversy between the parties ended when the Defendant
offered complete relief on January 18, 2013, and the Plaintiffs
accordingly lacked standing to file the Class Complaint after that
offer, Judge Dubois said.

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


COMSCORE INC: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an order certifying a class in
a suit alleging deceptive practices against comScore, Inc.,
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.

comScore has filed a petition requesting a review the class
certification order.

On August 23, 2011, the Company received notice that Mike Harris
and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other
things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act as well as unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including statutory
damages per violation and punitive damages, injunctive relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees of the plaintiffs.  In October 2012,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other
things, removed the claim relating to alleged violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.

On April 2, 2013, the District Court issued an order certifying a
class for only three of the four claims, refusing to certify a
class for unjust enrichment.  comScore has filed a petition
requesting the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit review the class certification order.

Based on examination of the remaining claims, the Company believes
that they are without merit. The Company continues to investigate
the claims and intends to vigorously protect and defend itself. It
is not possible for the Company to estimate a potential range of
loss at this time.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Ramtron Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint that Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
inherited as a result of its acquisition of Ramtron International
Corporation includes a motion to declare the suit as a class
action, 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.

"As a result of our acquisition of Ramtron, we have assumed
control of certain ongoing litigation involving Ramtron, including
certain shareholder litigation related to the Ramtron acquisition.
After being denied injunctive relief by the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware, on January 11, 2013, Plaintiff Paul Dent
amended his complaint to add allegations directed towards Cypress
for aiding and abetting Ramtron's directors and officers in
withholding information related to certain director relationships
from Ramtron shareholders.

"The relief sought by the amended complaint includes an order
declaring the action to be properly maintainable as a class
action, an award of the fair value of the Ramtron shares plus
interest, damages including rescissory damages plus interest, and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs. We immediately filed a
motion to dismiss. We believe strongly that this case is without
merit and we intend to defend it vigorously. Because the case is
at a very early stage and no specific monetary demand has been
made, it is not possible for us to estimate the potential loss or
range of potential losses."


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Seeks Dismissal of "Weber" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Cypress Semiconductor Corporation to dismiss a
securities case by a purported Ramtron International Corporation
shareholder is pending, 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 October 3, 2012, Allan P. Weber ("Plaintiff Weber"), a
purported Ramtron stockholder, also filed a putative class action
complaint against Ramtron, certain of its officers and directors,
and Cypress and its wholly-owned subsidiary Rain Acquisition
Corporation in Colorado state district court, alleging that the
directors and officers of Ramtron breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to take steps and/or avoiding steps that would have
otherwise maximized the value of Ramtron to its stockholders.

Plaintiff Weber sought to certify a class action with Plaintiff
Weber as class representative and his counsel as class counsel, an
injunction to prevent the merger, an order rescinding the merger
or awarding Plaintiff rescissory damages in the event the merger
is consummated, damages, profits and any special benefits obtained
by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

The company stated: "Plaintiff Weber has taken no action since the
complaint was filed and our motion to dismiss the case is pending.
We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it
vigorously. Because the case is at a very early stage and no
specific monetary demand has been made, it is not possible for us
to estimate the potential loss or range of potential losses."


DISH NETWORK: "Neuls" Class Suit Transferred to Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez -- in the case captioned JANICE
NEULS, and ZEPHYR CULBERTSON ADEE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C. and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case
No. 12-CV-02354-JAM-JFM, in the United States District Court, E.D.
California, Sacramento Division -- entered an order granting
defendant DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.'s Motion to Transfer Venue to the
District of Colorado.

Among others, Judge Mendez noted that the Plaintiffs assert no
violation of California law, their action is filed as a putative
nationwide class action, and one of the named Plaintiffs is
alleged to reside in Arizona.  "Also, there is nothing to suggest
that either side has engaged in forum shopping is seeking to have
the case transferred to either the District of Colorado or the
Northern District of Colorado."

Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq., represented the Plaintiffs.

Richard R. Patch, Esq., Zuzana S. Ikels, Esq., and Jeremiah J.
Burke, Esq., at Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, in San
Francisco, California, represented the Defendant, Dish Network
L.L.C.

A copy of the May 2, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/W9nu54from Leagle.com.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeals Certification of Overdraft Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation is appealing a decision by the Lake County
Court of Common Pleas to certify a class of checking account
holders in Ohio who allegedly incurred unnecessary overdraft 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.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against the Corporation and FirstMerit Bank, N.A.
The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions.

The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County Court of Common
Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The
remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement
of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief
and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial court certified the
class and the Bank and Corporation have appealed the
determination.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeals Class Cert. in Interest Calculation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Bank, N.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstMerit
Corporation, is appealing a ruling by the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas to certify a breach-of-contract suit for alleged
improper calculation of interest, 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 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against the Bank. The breach-of-contract complaint
was brought as a putative class action on behalf of Ohio
commercial borrowers who allegedly had the interest they owed
calculated improperly by using the 365/360 method. The complaint
seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney
fees. In June 2012, the trial court certified the class and the
Bank has appealed the determination.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Has MOU to Settle Suit Over Citizens Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Firstmerit Corporation has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a lawsuit filed by shareholders of
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. over the companies' merger,
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.

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits
in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, which have been
consolidated as In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit").

The consolidated complaint (the "Complaint") names as defendants
Citizens, the members of Citizens' board of directors and
FirstMerit. The complaint alleges that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best
available price in connection with the merger, by not utilizing a
proper process to evaluate the merger and by agreeing to
protective devices that ensured that no entity other than
FirstMerit would seek to acquire Citizens. The Complaint also
alleges that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of
the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable relief.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.

On February 21, 2013, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") setting forth their
agreement in principle to settle the Lawsuit. While the defendants
deny the allegations made in the Complaint, they agreed to enter
into the MOU to avoid the costs and disruptions of any further
litigation and to permit the timely closing of the merger. The MOU
sets forth the principal terms of the settlement that the parties
will document in a formal settlement agreement concerning the
Complaint (the "Settlement Agreement"), subject to confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiffs, and describes the actions that the
parties will take or refrain from taking between the date of the
MOU and the date that the Settlement Agreement is finally
approved.

Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants amended the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain
supplemental disclosures. The MOU also provides that the
Settlement Agreement will include an injunction against
proceedings in connection with the Complaint and any additional
complaints concerning claims covered by the Settlement Agreement.
In addition, the MOU provides that the Settlement Agreement will
include a release on behalf of the plaintiffs, along with other
members of the class of Citizens' shareholders certified for
purposes of the Settlement Agreement, in favor of the defendants
and their related parties from any claims that arose from or are
related to the merger. The defendants have agreed to pay the
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the court,
subject to court approval of the Settlement Agreement and the
consummation of the merger.


GAGS AND GAMES: Gets Prelim. Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned JOAN WILKENING,
TARA MISSEL, CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, and SABRINA GRAHAM individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GAGS AND GAMES, INC. doing business as HALLOWEEN CITY, a Michigan
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-01802-JAM-DAD (E.D.
Cal.).

Under the settlement, the Defendant has agreed to create a common
fund of $1,400,000, which will be all-inclusive, to pay (a) all
settlement payments to Class Members who submit a valid and timely
response form (and do not opt-out); (b) enhancement payments not
to exceed $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Joan Wilkening, Tara Missel,
Christopher Hughes and Sabrina Graham; (c) payment to State of
California, Labor and Workforce Development Agency of $15,000; (d)
cost of the class action administration estimated to be $32,500;
and, (e) attorney's fees not to exceed $420,000, and actual costs
incurred, not to exceed $24,250.

The Court finds that the provisional certification of the class
for settlement purposes is appropriate and that the Settlement
Class will be defined as follows: all persons who received any
gross income for employment as hourly employees, sales associates,
assistant store managers, and store managers employed in the State
of California by Defendant during the period from August 1, 2010
to May 16, 2013.

The Court orders the appointment of the Law Offices of Sohnen &
Kelly the Law Office of Mary-Alice Coleman as Class Counsel and
orders the appointment of Joan Wilkening, Tara Missel, Christopher
Hughes and Sabrina Graham as the class representatives. The Court
further approves and appoints Simpluris Inc. to act as the class
action administrator.

The Court orders that five calendar days prior to the final
approval hearing, a declaration will be filed with the Court by
the Settlement Administrator stating that the Notices were mailed
and re-mailed to the Class Members in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.

Any response form must be postmarked no later than 30 calendar
days after the Notice is initially mailed to the class and must be
received by the Settlement Administrator to be valid.

Any request for exclusion must be postmarked no later than 30
calendar days after the Notice is initially mailed to the class
and must be received by the Settlement Administrator to be valid.

Any objection to the Settlement Agreement must be in writing,
filed with the Court and mailed to the Settlement Administrator.
The objection must be postmarked no later than thirty 30 calendar
days after the Notice is initially mailed to the class. All
objections or other correspondence must state the name and number
of the case, which is Joan Wilkening et al. v. Gags & Games, Inc.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-01802-JAM-DAD.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on August 7, 2013, at 9:30
a.m., to consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the
proposed settlement preliminarily approved, and to consider the
motion of Class Counsel for an award of reasonable attorney's fees
and costs, the named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives'
enhancements, administration costs and payment to the Labor
Workforce and Development Agency.

Harvey Sohnen, Esq., and Patricia Kelly, Esq., of the Law Offices
of Sohnen and Kelly, in Orinda, California; and Mary-Alice
Coleman, Esq. -- lawoffice@maryalicecoleman.com -- Michael S.
Ahmad, Esq. -- mike.ahmad@lawofficemac.com -- of the Law Office of
Mary-Alice Coleman, in Davis, Ca, are the attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joan Wilkening, Tara Missel, Christopher Hughes, and Sabrina
Graham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.

David F. Faustman, Esq. -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com -- and
Tyreen Torner, Esq. -- ttorner@foxrothschild.com -- are the
attorneys for Defendant Gags & Games, Inc.

A copy of the District Court's May 16, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/KNwE4ifrom Leagle.com.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Files New Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Management Associates, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint in a consolidated securities suit filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, 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 April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against Health Management and certain of its executive officers,
one of whom is a director, were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption In Re:
Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-00046-
JES-DNF) and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead
plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who purchased our
common stock during the period from July 27, 2009 through January
9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i) alleges that
Health Management made false and misleading statements in certain
public disclosures regarding its business and financial results
and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that Health Management
inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing
practices that entailed admitting patients to observation status
when they should not have been admitted at all and to inpatient
status when they should have been admitted to observation status.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint.

On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to
the proposed amended pleadings. On February 11, 2013, the
defendants were served with the second amended consolidated
complaint, which asserts the same claims as the amended
consolidated complaint.

On May 3, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts required by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.


HEALTH NET: Motion to Dismiss Confidentiality Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Health Net, Inc. to dismiss a suit filed against it by
former and current members alleging records confidentiality
violation is pending, 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 March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (the "Central District of
California"), and similar actions were later filed against it in
other federal and state courts in California. A number of those
actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern
District of California"), and the two remaining actions are
currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento
County Superior Court").

The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending
in the Eastern District of California was filed on behalf of a
putative class of over 800,000 of our current or former members
who received the written notification, and also named IBM as a
defendant. It sought to state claims for violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the
California Customer Records Act, and sought statutory damages of
up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief.

According to Health Net, "On August 29, 2011, we filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2012, the
district court issued an order dismissing the consolidated
complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to
bring their action in federal court. On April 20, 2012, an amended
complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against us, but no longer
asserted claims against IBM. The amended complaint asserted the
same causes of action and sought the same relief as the earlier
complaint. On June 18, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which is currently pending."

       San Francisco County Superior Court Proceeding

The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted
on March 28, 2011 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California residents who received the written notification, and
seeks to state similar claims against the company, as well as
claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and
seeks similar relief.

The company stated, "We moved to compel arbitration of the two
named plaintiffs' claims. The court granted our motion as to one
of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the other. We are
appealing the latter ruling. Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom
our motion to compel arbitration was granted filed a petition for
a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking
review of that ruling. On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued
a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to
vacate its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and to
enter an order denying the motion to compel."

           Sacramento County Superior Court Proceeding

The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on
April 3, 2012 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California members whose information was contained on the
unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and
seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District
of California. On June 18, 2012, the company filed a demurrer
seeking dismissal of this complaint, which is currently pending.

According to the company, "We have also been informed that a
number of regulatory agencies are investigating the incident,
including the California Department of Managed Health Care
("DMHC"), the California Department of Insurance, the California
Attorney General, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and
Business Regulation and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services."


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Dynegy Shareholders' Suit in Abeyance
--------------------------------------------------------
A case filed on behalf of Dynegy shareholders Inc. against
Icahn Enterprises L.P./Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. is being
held in temporary abeyance pending a decision by the federal court
as to the scope of plaintiff's right to proceed with this action,
according to Icahn Enterprises' May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al.
Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc
("Dynegy") and certain of its directors.

As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares
between September 2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly
making false and misleading statements in securities filings that
artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock.

The individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling
persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified
amount. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization.

Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended
complaint which purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy
shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011
and March 9, 2012.

Icahn Enterprises stated, "However, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses to the claims and intend to file a motion to
dismiss. At present, the case is being held in temporary abeyance
pending a decision by the federal court as to the scope of
plaintiff's right to proceed with this action."


K12 INC: July 19 Final Hearing on $6.75M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Final court approval to resolve a securities class action against
K12 Inc., including a $6.75 million settlement is set for July 19,
2013, 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 January 30, 2012, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
David Hoppaugh et al. v. K12 Inc. et. al., was filed against the
Company and two of its officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. I:12-CV-
00103-CMH-IDD.

On May 18, 2012, the Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and it filed an amended class
action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on June 22, 2012. The
plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired K12 common stock between September 9, 2009
and December 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, and alleged
violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff alleged among other things that the defendants made
false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to
disclose material facts, about (i) the Company's revenue and
enrollment results during the Class Period, (ii) the academic
performance of the virtual schools served by the Company, and
(iii) certain school administrative practices and sales strategies
related to enrollments.

The plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief. On September 18, 2012, the Court denied Defendants' motion
on the pleadings to dismiss the action, and permitted the case to
proceed to the next stage of litigation.

On March 21, 2012, a federal stockholder derivative action, Jared
Staal v. Andrew H. Tisch, et. al., Case No. I:12-cv-00365-SLR,
putatively initiated on behalf of the Company, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  The
Board of Directors received a stockholder demand letter, dated
August 16, 2012, that asserted allegations against various
directors, senior officers and employees of K12 similar to those
made in the previously disclosed securities class action and
derivative lawsuits.

The stockholder requested that the Board investigate and pursue
claims related to breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the
Company. The Board formed a demand evaluation committee which
retained counsel to assist with its review of the demand.  On
October 19, 2012, the Board received a stockholder demand pursuant
to 8 Del. C. Sec. 220 (a "220 Demand") from Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System to inspect certain categories of
documents.

On March 4, 2013, the lead plaintiff in the stockholder class
action filed with Court a "Stipulation of Partial Voluntary
Dismissal with Prejudice" in which it stated that "[s]ubstantial
fact discovery and expert discovery to date does not support the
academic and educational quality claims on the merits."

In addition, the lead plaintiff submitted an "Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of a Proposed Class Action Settlement," which
proposed a settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the
remaining claims related to the disclosure of student enrollment
and retention data at Company-managed schools. Under the proposed
settlement, $6.75 million will be paid into a settlement fund by
the Company's insurance carriers for stockholders in the class.

The Company continues to deny each and all of the claims and all
charges of wrongdoing or liability.  As previously disclosed, the
Company has agreed in principle to settle a shareholder derivative
action filed in the federal district for the district of Delaware,
as well as associated shareholder demands.  The terms of the
proposed settlement, which must be approved by the court, include
improvements to the Company's corporate governance.

On March 22, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed resolution of the class action, including the dismissal
and the settlement agreement.  All of these actions remain subject
to final Court approval at a hearing currently scheduled for July
19, 2013.

The Company's insurance carriers have agreed to reimburse the
Company for legal and related costs defending the class-action
lawsuit as provided under the Company's directors and officers
liability insurance.


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Mo. Court Yet to Rule in ARCO Pipeline Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
yet to render a decision on the issue of class certification in a
suit over alleged hazardous chemicals migrating from the ARCO
Pipeline that Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. acquired in 1994.

Magellan Midstream disclosed on its May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that: "In February 2010, a class action
lawsuit was filed against us, ARCO Midcon L.L.C. and WilTel
Communications, L.L.C. ("WilTel"). The complaint alleges that the
property owned by plaintiffs and those similarly situated has been
damaged by the existence of hazardous chemicals migrating from a
pipeline easement onto the plaintiffs' property."

"We acquired the pipeline from ARCO Pipeline ("APL") in 1994 as
part of a larger transaction and subsequently transferred the
property to WilTel. We are required to indemnify and defend WilTel
pursuant to the transfer agreement. Prior to the acquisition of
the pipeline from APL, the pipeline was purged of product. Neither
we nor WilTel ever transported hazardous materials through the
pipeline. A hearing on the plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification was held in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri in December 2012. The court has not yet
rendered a decision on the issue of class certification."


MERITOR INC: Makes Settlement Payment in Filter Price Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement payment was made during the first quarter of fiscal
year 2013 for a suit filed against a prior subsidiary of Meritor,
Inc. over alleged fix pricing of automotive filters, Meritor
disclosed in its May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2013.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated
corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.

This suit was a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel
purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, were filed by other plaintiffs in a variety
of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S. cases
were consolidated into a multi-district litigation proceeding in
Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations. In April
2012, the company settled with indirect purchasers for $3.1
million. In August 2012, the company entered into a settlement
agreement for the remaining claims with the U.S. direct purchasers
for $8.3 million. The settlement payment was made during the first
quarter of fiscal year 2013.

Following this settlement, the only remaining plaintiffs in the
litigation are those who filed their actions in Canada. The
company believes any liability associated with the claims of such
plaintiffs will be immaterial.


OLD NATIONAL: Suit Against Overdraft Fees Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp is appealing a class certification in a suit
over its checking account practices in assessing overdraft fees
for debit card and ATM transactions, the company 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.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh County Circuit Court challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices associated with the assessment
of overdraft fees. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted
permission to file a First Amended Complaint which named
additional plaintiffs and amended certain claims.

The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including
restitution On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was subsequently denied
by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and
provides for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the
State of Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who,
within the applicable statutes of limitation through August 15,
2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest."

Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on April 2, 2013, and
the trial court has stayed proceedings pending the Court of
Appeals accepting jurisdiction of the appeal. Old National
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the
plaintiffs. At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible
for management of Old National to determine the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any
loss.


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Cases Over Parlux Merger Junked, Abandoned
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following the announcement of Perfumania Holdings, Inc.'s merger
agreement with Parlux Inc. on December 23, 2011, several putative
class action complaints were filed against the Company, Parlux
Inc., the Parlux Inc. directors, and certain other related parties
in state courts in Florida and Delaware. All such cases were
dismissed or abandoned before the end of the fiscal year ended
February 2, 2013, according to the company's May 3, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended February 2, 2013.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Bank Still Faces Suit Over Debit Card
---------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Bank continues to face a suit filed on behalf of
Tennessee customers alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method of
ordering debit card transactions caused them to incur higher
overdraft charges, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. disclosed on
its May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al,
v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against Pinnacle
Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on
behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers within
the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method of
ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of Pinnacle
Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a different method
been used.

In support of his claims, the plaintiff asserts theories of breach
of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment of unconscionability.  The plaintiff is
seeking, among other remedies, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank are vigorously contesting
this matter.  On January 17, 2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle
Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to
dismiss was granted without prejudice to Pinnacle Financial and
denied as to Pinnacle Bank on April 13, 2012, and Pinnacle Bank
filed an answer on May 30, 2012.


PITNEY BOWES: Securities Lawsuit by NECA-IBEW Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed
a securities lawsuit filed against Pitney Bowes Inc. by NECA-IBEW
Health & Welfare Fund, 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 October 2009, the company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare
Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the company
during the period between July 30, 2007 and October 29, 2007
alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2010. On March
23, 2013, the Court granted our motion to dismiss, and dismissed
the case in its entirety. Plaintiff did not appeal the decision,
and therefore, this case has now concluded in favor of Pitney
Bowes and its officers named in the lawsuit.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Army Veterans' Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury is yet
to be resolved in a suit against Prudential Financial, Inc.
over the use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit
claims of beneficiaries of U.S. armed forces veterans, Prudential
Financial 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.

Prudential Financial said, "From July 2010 to December 2010, four
purported nationwide class actions were filed challenging the use
of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims of
beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract owned by the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives
of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces."

"In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial
Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance
Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts
that earn interest and are available to be withdrawn by the
beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time, to settle death
benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and asserts claims
of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits,
equitable relief and pre and post-judgment interest.

"In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In August 2012,
the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion without
prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment motions on the
issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury. In October
2012, the parties filed their summary judgment motions."


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" ERISA Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed against Prudential Financial Inc. on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans remains stayed,
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, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of
ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.

In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the
outcome of a case involving another insurer that is on appeal to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Nixing of Beneficiaries' Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed a 2009 decision that dismissed a
lawsuit over alleged improper practices committed by Prudential
Financial, Inc. over its use of retained asset accounts to settle
benefits, 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 January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada. The
complaint was brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of
individual life insurance policies for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts.

The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose material
information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully delayed
payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and seeks
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and pre and post-
judgment interest. In February 2011, plaintiff appealed the
dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide class action
raising substantially similar allegations brought by the same
plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was
dismissed.

In December 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal. In January
2013, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the
complaint.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ill. Beneficiaries Appeal Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against Prudential Financial Inc. by a
class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were
settled by retained assets accounts are appealing a dismissal of
the case, 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 December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court
and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.   The complaint makes allegations under
Illinois law, substantially similar to Garcia v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America, on behalf of a class of Illinois
residents whose death benefit claims were settled by retained
assets accounts. In March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop
the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as
a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance
and Pruco Life Insurance Company. In November 2011, the complaint
was dismissed. In December 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal.

In July 2010, the Company, along with other life insurance
industry participants, received a formal request for information
from the State of New York Attorney General's Office in connection
with its investigation into industry practices relating to the use
of retained asset accounts. In August 2010, the Company received a
similar request for information from the State of Connecticut
Attorney General's Office. The Company is cooperating with these
investigations. The Company has also been contacted by state
insurance regulators and other governmental entities, including
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Congressional
committees regarding retained asset accounts. These matters may
result in additional investigations, information requests, claims,
hearings, litigation, adverse publicity and potential changes to
business practices.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: NJ Court Maintains No Class in "Clark" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order
denying class certification to certain California, Indiana, Ohio
and Texas residents who purchased individual health insurance
policies from Prudential Insurance Company, according to
Prudential Insurance, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company. The complaint brought on
behalf of a purported class of California, Indiana, Ohio and Texas
residents who purchased individual health insurance policies
alleges that Prudential Insurance failed to disclose that it had
ceased selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result,
premiums would increase significantly.

The complaint alleges claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and
omission, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
California's Unfair Competition Law and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. The matter was originally filed in 2008 and
certain of the claims in the first four complaints were dismissed.

In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In July 2012, Prudential Insurance moved for
summary judgment on certain of plaintiffs' claims. In February
2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and granted the motion by Prudential Insurance for summary
judgment against two of the named plaintiffs and denied summary
judgment against two other plaintiffs.

In April 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions: (i) for
reconsideration of the Court's order denying class certification
and granting the Company partial summary judgment; and (ii) to
alter or amend the order denying class certification by redefining
the class and bifurcating liability and damages issues."


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc. notes 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 in August 2012, a purported
class action lawsuit, City of Sterling Heights General Employees'
Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, alleging violations of federal securities law.

The complaint names as defendants the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting
Officer and certain members of the Company's Board of Directors.

The complaint alleges that knowingly false and misleading
statements were made regarding the Company's current and future
financial condition based on, among other things, the alleged
failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits that
should either have been paid to policyholders or their
beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the
extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law
violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment
of unclaimed property.

The complaint seeks an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Agents' Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
consolidated action against Prudential Financial Inc. by insurance
agents, 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 October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law.

The complaint seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class on the federal overtime claim. Separately, in March 2008, a
purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance,
claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and
provide other benefits in violation of California and federal law
and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified
amounts.

In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint
have resulted in additional allegations involving purported
violations of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment
laws.

In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal
overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008
and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of
the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims. In January 2013, the Court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety.


REPUBLIC INSURANCE: HANO Compromised Claims in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Order and Reasons was entered by District Judge Mary Ann Vial
Lemmon in the case captioned REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Civil Action No. 08-4748, United States
District Court, E.D. Louisiana on May 2, 2013.

The case is related to a class action lawsuit filed in the Civil
District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana entitled,
John Johnson, et al. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., Civil Action No.
93-14333 c/w 94-12996 c/w 94-13271.

Judge Lemmon ruled, among others, that Republic Insurance
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to a
declaration that the Housing Authority of New Orleans ("HANO")
compromised all past and future claims for defense costs and bad
faith penalties against Republic related to the Johnson Class
Action.  The Court, however, denied Republic's Motion for Summary
Judgment as to awarding damages for HANO's breach of a 2009
settlement agreement, a permanent injunction and imposing
sanctions on HANO.

A copy of the May 2, 2013, Order and Reasons is available at
http://is.gd/6YfM23from Leagle.com.


SOLTA MEDICAL: In Mediation to Settle TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit over alleged violation of Solta Medical,
Inc. of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act participated in
private mediation and settlement negotiations are ongoing,
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 May 3, 2012, the Company and Reliant Technologies, which the
Company acquired in December 2008, were served with a class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that Reliant Technologies
caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiff
in 2008, in violation of the TCPA.

Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the putative class, seeks the
greater of actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of
$500 per violation, treble damages for any willful violations, and
injunctive relief. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures
and discovery has commenced.

The parties participated in private mediation on March 11, 2013,
and settlement negotiations are ongoing. No trial date has been
set. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss
at this time and intends to vigorously defend this action.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Fighting "Garza" Owner-Operator Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company intends to pursue all available
appellate relief to fight a certified owner-operator class action
filed against it in the Maricopa County trial court, 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 January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-0472, or the Garza Complaint.

The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who
contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that
was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the
Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles
driven rather than the contracted and industry standard
remuneration based upon dispatched miles.

The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination.

Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class
certification and expanded it to include all persons who were
employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift
as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who
were compensated by reference to miles driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three month
period under a one year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.

On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. During the month of
April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect to
certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to
compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the
class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of
contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based
on statute of limitations.

The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate
relief supported by the record, which the Company believes
demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further,
that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of
its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Anticipates Arbitration in "Sheer" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is preparing to defend any
arbitration proceedings in an owner-operator misclassification
lawsuit filed against it, 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 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and Interstate Equipment Leasing (IEL): John
Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc ., Jerry Moyes, and Chad
Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Sheer
Complaint.

The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees.

The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the
lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into
with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court in
Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief.

On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion
to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The Court also denied plaintiff's
request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that
the District Court's order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court
denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and the
plaintiff's filed another request for interlocutory appeal.

On December 9, 2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed
with their interlocutory appeal. Swift intends to vigorously
defend against any arbitration proceedings. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Rudsell" & "Burnell" Wage Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is facing two lawsuits alleging the
company failed to pay drivers the California minimum wage, failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment, 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 March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint.

On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. The putative class includes
drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the
date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the California
minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and
failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The
Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of proceedings pending
determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift,
Brinker v Hohnbaum, which was then pending before the California
Supreme Court. An opinion was entered in the Brinker matter and in
August 2012 the stay in the Burnell Complaint was lifted.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino, or the Rudsell
Complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the
class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters
should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both
cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Enters Mediation in "Ridderbush" Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is settling one labor lawsuit and
awaiting a ruling whether a court will certify a similar suit,
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 July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint.

The Montalvo Complaint was removed to federal court on August 15,
2011, case number 3-11-CV-01827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs,
the matter was remanded to state court and the Company filed an
appeal to this remand, which appeal has been denied.

On July 11, 2011 a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen
Ridderbush on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation
Services, LLC in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon,
Multnomah County, or the Ridderbush Complaint.

The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to federal court on August
24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028. Both putative classes include
employees alleging that candidates for employment within the four
year statutory period in California and within the three year
statutory period in Oregon, were not paid the state mandated
minimum wage during their orientation phase.

On July 17, 2012, the parties involved in the Ridderbush Complaint
engaged in a voluntary mediation session in an attempt to resolve
the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigate legal
expense. In January 2013, the parties executed a settlement
agreement whereby the entire matter has settled on a claims made
basis. The maximum amount to be paid by Swift shall not exceed
$700,000.

The issue of class certification in the Montalvo Complaint must
first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the
case, and the company retains all defenses against liability and
damages pending a determination of class certification. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against certification of the
class as well as the merits of this matter should the class be
certified.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Face Wash. Overtime Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face a lawsuit over
driver overtime in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County,
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 September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Compliant.

The Slack Compliant was removed to federal court on October 12,
2011, case number 11-2-11438-0. The putative class includes all
current and former Washington State based employee drivers during
the three year statutory period alleging that they were not paid
overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they
were not properly paid for meals and rest periods.

The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the
class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be
certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this
time.


TECO ENERGY: No Ruling Yet in Suit v. PGS Over 2010 Power Outage
----------------------------------------------------------------
No ruling yet has been made in plaintiffs' request that a court
certify a suit against Peoples Gas System over a power outage in
2010 in Lee and Collier counties, according to TECO Energy, Inc.'s
May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In November 2010, heavy equipment operated at a road construction
site being conducted by Posen Construction, Inc. struck a natural
gas line causing a rupture and ignition of the gas, and an outage
in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties.

Two commercial customers of Peoples Gas System, the gas division
of Tampa Electric Company, filed a purported class action in Lee
County Circuit Court against PGS on behalf of PGS commercial
customers affected by the outage, seeking damages for loss of
revenue and other costs related to the gas outage. Posen
Construction, Inc., the company conducting construction at the
site where the incident occurred, is also a defendant in the
action. A hearing was held in January 2013 on the plaintiffs'
request that the court certify the suit as a class action; to date
the court has not made a ruling.

PGS filed suit against Posen Construction in Federal Court for the
Middle District of Florida to recover damages for repair and
restoration relating to the incident, and Posen Construction
counter-claimed against PGS alleging negligence. In addition, the
Posen Construction employee operating the heavy equipment involved
in the incident has filed suit in Lee County Circuit Court against
PGS, Posen Construction and the engineering company on the
construction project, seeking damages for his injuries.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: In Mediation Over TVARS Beneficiaries' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation that began in September 2012 between the Tennessee
Valley Authority Retirement System (TVARS) board and beneficiaries
is continuing, according to the Authority's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In March 2010, eight current and former participants in and
beneficiaries of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System
filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee against the six then-current members of the
TVARS Board.

The lawsuit challenged the TVARS Board's decision to suspend the
TVA contribution requirements for 2010 through 2013, and to amend
the TVARS Rules and Regulations to (1) reduce the calculation for
cost of living adjustment ("COLA") benefits for CY 2010 through CY
2013, (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund
accounts, and (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs
from age 55 to 60.

The plaintiffs allege that TVA's actions violated the TVARS Board
members' fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs (and the purported
class) and the plaintiffs' contractual rights, among other claims.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified damages, an
order directing the TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and the
appointment of a seventh TVARS Board member.  Five of the six
individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, while
the remaining defendant filed an answer to the complaint.  In July
2010, TVA moved to intervene in the suit in the event it was not
dismissed.

In September 2010, the district court dismissed the breach of
fiduciary duty claim against the directors without prejudice,
allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 14
days against TVARS and TVA but not the individual directors.

The plaintiffs previously had voluntarily withdrawn their
constitutional claims, so the court also dismissed those claims
without prejudice.  The court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, violation of the
Internal Revenue Code, and appointment of a seventh TVARS Board
member.

In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against TVARS and TVA.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
violations of their constitutional rights (due process, equal
protection, and property rights), violations of the Administrative
Procedure Act, and breach of statutory duties owed to the
plaintiffs.

They seek a declaratory judgment and appropriate relief for the
alleged statutory and constitutional violations and breaches of
duty.  TVA filed its answer to the amended complaint in December
2010.  In May 2012, the court granted the parties' joint motion to
administratively close the case subject to reopening to allow the
parties the opportunity to engage in mediation that will likely
take a significant amount of time to complete. The mediation began
in September 2012 and is taking place over a series of meetings.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Miss. Residents Seek to Revive Katrina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who are reviving a suit against the Tennessee Valley
Authority Retirement System over Hurricane Katrina injuries are
appealing the dismissal of the case to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 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 April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action
lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents
allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina.  The plaintiffs sued seven
large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three
large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31
large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal,
alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global
warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane
Katrina's increased destructive force.  Action by the United
States Supreme Court in January 2011 ended this case in a manner
favorable to TVA.

However, in May 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that
permits the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on
procedural grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi against the same and additional defendants, again
alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global
warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane
Katrina's increased destructive force.

The court dismissed the lawsuit in March 2012 for a variety of
reasons, including that the lawsuit presented a non-justiciable
political question and that all of the claims were preempted by
the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


TETRA TECH: BPR Sued Over Alleged Collusion with City of Montreal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal
in which BPR Inc., BPR's former president, and other Quebec-based
engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants,
according to Tetra Tech Inc.'s May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.  Tetra Tech acquired BPR, a Quebec-based
engineering firm on October 4, 2010.

The plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that
have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal.

The allegations include participation in collusion to share
contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce
competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making
illegal political contributions, and bid rigging.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dentists Denied Certification in Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against Triple-S Management Corporation by
a dentists association are awaiting a federal court decision on
the question of court jurisdiction over the case following a
denial of class certification, 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 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage. The Company and
two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc. ("TCI"), were
included as defendants. This litigation purports to be a class
action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, violations to the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the Puerto Rico
racketeering statute, unfair business practices, breach of
contract with providers, and damages in the amount of $150,000.

In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto Rico Insurance
Companies Association is the hub of an alleged conspiracy
concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists. There are
numerous available defenses to oppose both the request for class
certification and the merits. The Company intends to vigorously
defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed. Following months of jurisdictional proceedings in the
federal court system, the federal district court in Puerto Rico
decided to retain jurisdiction on February 8, 2011. The defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits, because
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

On August 31, 2011, the District Court dismissed all of
plaintiffs' claims except for its breach of contract claim, and
ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the court still
has federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its August
31, 2011 decision and the defendants did the same, arguing that
the breach of contract claim failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

On May 2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On May
31, 2012, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of
their complaint and the denial of plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On September 25, 2012 the District Court denied without prejudice
the defendants' motion for reconsideration. On October 10, 2012
the parties filed their briefs with respect to class
certification.

On March 13, 2013, the district court denied plaintiffs' request
for class certification and ordered the parties to brief the court
on whether jurisdiction still exists under CAFA following such
denial. On April 24, 2013, all parties briefed the court and are
awaiting the court's decision.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Appeals Certification of Underwriters' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit by motor vehicle owners against Triple-S Management
Corporation is again before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First District after the court refused an authorization to file a
writ of appeals against an order certifying a class in the case,
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 August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 18 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations
under the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and the local statute against organized crime and money
laundering.

JUA is a private association created by law to administer a
compulsory public liability insurance program for motor vehicles
in Puerto Rico ("CLI"). As required by its enabling act, JUA is
composed of all the insurers that underwrite private motor vehicle
insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum underwriting
percentage established in such act. TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600, treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch a suit cannot be
brought, even under RICO, to amend the compulsory liability
insurance rates that were approved by the Puerto Rico Legislature
and the Commissioner of Insurance.

The motion also argues that since RICO is not a federal statute
that specifically relates to the business of insurance, and its
application in the claims at issue would frustrate state policy
and interfere with Puerto Rico's insurance administrative regime,
the McCarran-Ferguson Act precludes plaintiffs' claims. Finally,
TSP argued that plaintiffs failed to allege the necessary elements
of an actionable RICO claim, or, in the alternative, their damages
claim is time barred.

The company disclosed that, "On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs
filed their opposition. On April 4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in
support of our motion to dismiss. The court denied our motion to
dismiss. On October 2, 2012, the court issued an order certifying
the class. On October 12, 2012, several defendants, including TSP,
filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
District, requesting the court to vacate the District Court's
certification order. The First Circuit denied the authorization to
file the writ of appeals. The case is again before the court,
pending further proceedings."

"A similar case entitled Maria Margarita Collazo Burgos, et al. v.
La Asociacion de Suscripcion Conjunta del Seguro de
Responsabilidad Obligatorio ("JUA"), et al., was filed against JUA
and its members, including TSP, in the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance, San Juan Part on January 28, 2010. This litigation is a
putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of motor vehicle
owners in Puerto Rico.

"Plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that each of the defendants
engaged in similar activities and conduct as those alleged in the
Torres Ronda litigation and claim the recovery of $225,000 for the
class pertaining to the acquisition and administration costs of
the CLI, allegedly charged in violation of the Puerto Rico
Insurance Code's provisions prohibiting the illegal traffic of
premiums. TSP is vigorously contesting this action.

"Given the early stage of these cases, the Company cannot assess
the probability of an adverse outcome, or the reasonable financial
impact that any such outcome may have on the Company. The Company
intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits."


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Triple-S Salud Faces Ala. Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Triple-S Management Corporation in the care
market, Triple-S Salud, Inc., which is a Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association ("BCBSA") licensee, is a co-defendant in an antitrust
suit, 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.

TSS is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the BCBSA in a
multi-district class action litigation that alleges that the
exclusive service area (ESA) requirements of the Primary License
Agreements with Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in
these suits seek monetary awards and in some instances, injunctive
relief barring ESAs.

Those cases have been centralized in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Prior to
centralization, motions have been filed to dismiss some of the
cases. Discovery has not yet commenced. The Company has joined
BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims.


U.S. BANCORP: Visa Litigation Liability Stands at $65MM
-------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2013, the carrying amount of U.S. Bancorp's liability
related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the
escrow fundings, was $65 million, 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.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.

The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability. On October 19, 2012, Visa signed
a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated
with the multi-district interchange litigation, the largest of the
remaining Visa Litigation matters.

The settlement has not yet been finally approved by the court, is
not yet binding, and has been challenged by some class members. At
March 31, 2013, the carrying amount of the Company's liability
related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the
escrow fundings, was $65 million and included the Company's
estimate of its share of the temporary reduction in interchange
rates specified in the settlement agreement. The remaining Class B
shares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion to
Class A shares, and thereby become marketable, upon settlement of
the Visa Litigation.


UMG RECORDINGS: Court Rules on Joint Discovery Dispute Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James issued on May 2, 2013, an Order
Regarding Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Filed on March 27, 2013,
in the case RICK JAMES, by and through THE JAMES AMBROSE JOHNSON,
JR., 1999 TRUST, his successor in interest, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UMG
RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, No. C 11-1613
SI (MEJ), United States District Court, N.D. California.

The case is a consolidated putative class action for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and statutory violations of various state laws against defendant,
UMG Recordings, Inc., and its affiliated and subsidiary entities

A copy of the May 2, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/yjf6Ryfrom Leagle.com


UNILEVER UNITED: Has Until June 12 to Respond to Maxwell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila gave defendants in the case AMY
MAXWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., PEPSICO,
INC., and PEPSI LIPTON TEA PARTNERSHIP Defendants, Case No.
CV12-01736-EJD, in United States District Court, N.D. California,
San Jose Division, until June 12, 2013, to respond to the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

On April 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Class Action and
Representative Action Complaint for Damages and Equitable and
Injunctive Relief.

A copy of the May 2, 2013, Stipulation Extending Time to Respond
to Second Amended Complaint is available at http://is.gd/u26RLB
from Leagle.com

Attorneys for Defendants Unilever United States, Inc., and
Pepsi/Lipton Tea Partnership:

     William L. Stern, Esq.
     Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq.
     Lisa A. Wongchenko, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     San Francisco, California

Attorneys for Defendant, PEPSICO, INC.:

     Daniel W. Nelson, Esq.
     Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
     Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
     PRATT & ASSOCIATES
     Campbell, California


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cold-FX Suit Certification Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a certification of a suit against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. over Cold-FX is scheduled for
September 3, 2013, 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 March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa.

The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period
and that the class has suffered damages as a result. The Company
filed its certification materials on February 6, 2013 and a
hearing on certification is scheduled for September 3, 2013. The
Company denies the allegations being made and is defending this
matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Inks MOU to Settle Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, which Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International acquired in 2012, and counsel for former employees
who sued the company over alleged discrimination in the workplace
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this matter on a
class-wide basis, according to Valeant'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, Medicis received a demand letter from counsel
purporting to represent a class of female sales employees alleging
gender discrimination in, among others things, compensation and
promotion as well as claims that the former management group
maintained a work environment that was hostile and offensive to
female sales employees.

Related charges of discrimination were filed prior to the end of
2011 by six former female sales employees with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"). Three of those
charges have been dismissed by the EEOC and the EEOC has made no
findings of discrimination. Medicis engaged in mediation with such
former employees.

On March 19, 2013, Medicis and counsel for the former employees
signed an MOU to settle this matter on a class-wide basis and
resolve all claims with respect thereto. In connection with the
agreed-upon settlement, Medicis would pay a specified sum and
would pay the costs of the claims administration up to an agreed-
upon fixed amount.

Medicis would also implement certain specified programmatic
relief. The settlement is subject to negotiation of a settlement
agreement between the parties and approval of such settlement
agreement and settlement documentation by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in Ariz. Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Superior Court issued an order granting the parties'
joint stipulation to dismiss a securities lawsuit filed against
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. over its acquisition
of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, according to Valeant's
May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Medicis, several purported
holders of then public shares of Medicis filed putative class
action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Arizona
Superior Court against Medicis and the members of its board of
directors, as well as one or both of Valeant and Merlin Merger
Sub, Inc. (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in
connection with the Medicis acquisition).

The Delaware actions (which were instituted on September 11, 2012
and October 1, 2012, respectively) were consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.).

The Arizona action (which was instituted on September 11, 2012)
bears the caption Swint v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, et.
al., Case No. CV2012-055635 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.). The actions all
alleged, among other things, that the Medicis directors breached
their fiduciary duties because they supposedly failed to properly
value Medicis and caused materially misleading and incomplete
information to be disseminated to Medicis' public shareholders,
and that Valeant and/or Merlin Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions also sought,
among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
money damages.

On November 20, 2012, Medicis and the other named defendants in
the Delaware action signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
to settle the Delaware action and resolve all claims asserted by
the purported class. In connection with the proposed settlement,
the plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount to be determined by the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The settlement is subject to court approval and further
definitive documentation. The plaintiff in the Arizona action
agreed to dismiss her complaint.

On January 15, 2013, the Arizona Superior Court issued an order
granting the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the Arizona
action.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Has MOU in "Obagi" Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle stockholder suits filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the
State of California, 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.

Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of
Obagi Medical Products, Inc. ("Obagi"), the following complaints
were filed:

     (i) a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on April 1, 2013 and
on April 8, 2013, captioned Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical
Products, Inc., et al.;

    (ii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and
amended on March 27, 2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical
Products, Inc., et al.; and

   (iii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 27, 2013, captioned
Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.

Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names
as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board. The two
complaints filed in California also name Valeant and Odysseus
Acquisition Corp. as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in
each action are substantially similar.

The plaintiffs allege that the members of the Obagi Board breached
their fiduciary duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with
the sale of the company, and the California complaints further
allege that Obagi, Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

In support of their purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that
the proposed transaction undervalues Obagi, involves an inadequate
sales process and includes preclusive deal protection devices. The
plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case in
California also filed amended complaints, which added allegations
challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the
transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the
plaintiffs to the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of
California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits.

The settlement is subject to the approval of the appropriate court
and further definitive documentation. On April 24, 2013, having
received notice that the parties had reached an agreement to
settle the litigation, the California Court scheduled a "Hearing
on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal" for July 31, 2013. If the MOU
is not approved or the applicable conditions are not satisfied,
the defendants will continue to vigorously defend these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Hearing Set in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2013 final approval hearing is set for the settlement of a
suit filed against several defendants on behalf of indirect
purchasers of Wellbutrin XL, according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International's May 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biovail, its subsidiary Biovail
Laboratories International SRL ("BLS") (now Valeant International
Bermuda), GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the
latter two of which are referred to here as "GSK") seeking damages
and alleging that Biovail, BLS and GSK took actions to improperly
delay FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL.

In late May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect
purchaser class actions were also filed against Biovail, BLS and
GSK in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar
allegations. After motion practice, the complaints were
consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser and a lead
indirect purchaser action, and the Court ultimately denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints.

The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class
certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
Wellbutrin XL directly from any of the defendants at any time
during the period of November 14, 2005 through August 31, 2009.
Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and federal government entities. Further excluded from
the class are persons or entities who have not purchased generic
versions of Wellbutrin XL during the class period after the
introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one
of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining
claim.

Following the summary judgment decision, the Company entered into
binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs' classes to
resolve all existing claims against the Company. The total
settlement amount payable is $49.25 million. In addition, the
Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice costs.
These charges were recognized in the second quarter of 2012,
within Legal settlements and related fees in the consolidated
statements of (loss) income. The settlements require Court
approval.

The direct purchaser class filed its motion for preliminary
approval of its settlement on July 23, 2012. The hearing on final
approval of that settlement took place on November 7, 2012, with
the court granting final approval to the settlement. The Court has
preliminarily approved the settlement with the indirect purchasers
and has set a hearing for final approval in June 2013.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Stock Suit Accord Contains Contingent Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellcare Health Plans, Inc. said 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 it is subject to two
contingencies in line with a Stipulation Agreement it entered into
to settle a securities lawsuit.

The company stated that: "In December 2010, we entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the lead plaintiffs
in the consolidated securities class action Eastwood Enterprises,
L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ."

"The Stipulation Agreement included two contingencies to which
WellCare remains subject. If, prior to December 17, 2013, we are
acquired or otherwise experience a change in control at a share
price of $30.00 or more, we must pay an additional $25,000 to the
class action plaintiffs.

"The Stipulation Agreement also requires us to pay to the class
action plaintiffs 25% of any sums we recover from Todd Farha, Paul
Behrens and/or Thaddeus Bereday related to the same facts and
circumstances that gave rise to the consolidated securities class
action."

In another section of the regulatory filing, the company stated:
"We have also previously advanced legal fees and related expenses
to these five criminally-indicted individuals regarding disputes
in Delaware Chancery Court related to whether we were legally
obligated to advance fees or indemnify certain of these
executives; the class actions titled Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C.
v. Farha, et al. and Hutton v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc. et al.
filed in federal court; six stockholder derivative actions filed
in federal and state courts between October 2007 and January 2008;
an investigation by the United States Securities & Exchange
Commission (the "Commission"); and an action by the Commission
filed in January 2012 against Messrs. Farha, Behrens and Bereday.
The Delaware Chancery Court cases have concluded."

"We settled the class actions in May 2011. In 2010, we settled the
stockholder derivative actions and we were realigned as the
plaintiff to pursue our claims against Messrs. Farha, Behrens and
Bereday. These actions, as well as the action by the Commission,
have been stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial."


YRC WORLDWIDE: Reaches Accord to Settle "Bryant" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. entered into mediation that resulted to an
agreement in principle to settle a securities suit filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC, 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 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC ("Bryant") in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws
for statements and/or omissions allegedly made by the company and
the individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs
claimed to be false and misleading.

The individual defendants are former officers of the Company. No
current officers or directors were named in the lawsuit.

The parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11,
2013 and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in an agreement in
principle, which is subject to the execution of a mutually
acceptable definitive agreement and approval by the court.  Court
approval cannot be assured. Substantially all of the payments
contemplated by the settlement will be covered by the company's
liability insurance. The self-insured retention on this matter has
been accrued as of March 31, 2013.








                             *********

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  * * *