CAR_Public/130606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 111

                             Headlines



ACA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
AMYRIS INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
BASELL AF: Noteholders' Suit v. BNYMellon Over Buyout Tossed
BAYER AG: Enforced Diversify in Mirena MDL Raises Issue
BP AMERICA: Texas AG Files Suit over April 2010 Oil Spill

CANADA DRY: Recalls Mott's Garden Cocktail Due to Possible Mould
CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated N.Y. Suit Granted
CANADIAN SOLAR: Motions in Ontario Suit to Be Argued in June
CHERYL'S: Recalls 10,588 Buttercream Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies
CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Minnick" Class Suit Remains Pending

CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Newton" Class Suit Remains Pending
CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Dennings" Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Kwan" Suit Settlement
CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Wuest" Suit in California
CLEARWIRE CORP: Defends Sprint Merger Suits in Del. and Wash.

CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces "Lindsay" Class Action Suit in Minnesota
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Final OK of AHM Suit Settlements
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Ruling in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss AIG Securities Suit Pending

COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Suits v. Underwriters
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Consolidated Litigations
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Suits Over Lehman Offerings
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Countrywide-Related Suits Pending in Calif.
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discrimination Suits vs. Citigroup Pending

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Global Crossing Suits vs. Citigroup Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: N.J. Carpenters Class Suit Remains Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Over Interbank Offered Rates Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Relating to Adelphia Offerings Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Wage and Hour Violation Suits Remain Pending

ELECTRONIC ARTS: 3rd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Video Game Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Defends 42 Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Tax Issues
EXPEDIA INC: Defends Class Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices
FOUNDERS PAVILION: Faces EEOC GINA Class Action Suit
FRED MEYER: Recalls 1,000 Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Easter Chicks

LENDER PROCESSING: Awaits Court OK of "St. Clair" Suit Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Closing Arguments Take Place in Stop-and-Frisk Suit
PENGUIN GROUP: Settles Suit Over Alleged E-Book Price Fixing
SEASTREAK WALL STREET: Faces 45 Passenger Damages Claims
SOULCYCLE: Wage Class Action May Hurt Fitness Industry

SPI ELECTRICITY: Data on Power Lines Limited, Ex-Engineer Says
TEAVANA CORP: Recalls 469,850 Teavana Glass Tea Tumblers
THE COPA: Mum on Progress of Salmonella Outbreak Investigation
TNUVA CENTRAL: Faces Class Action Over Animal Cruelty
UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Class Action Over Flawed HS2 Scheme

VISA INC: Retailers File Suit Over Interchange Fees
WAL-MART: Ordered to Release Documents in Bribery Case
WOLFGANG PUCK: Faces Class Action for Skimming Employees' Tips
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Defends "Marcano" Securities Suit in Calif.

* US Supreme Court Issues Series of Pro-Business Decisions


                             *********


ACA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Sabados, Esq. and Allison Wuertz, Esq. at Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP said the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi denied the motion of defendant
ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation (ACA) to dismiss a class action
complaint, finding that the issues were previously adjudicated
adversely to ACA in the New York Supreme Court where a companion
case, Oppenheimer v. ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, is
currently pending.

The putative class action arose from ACA's agreement to insure
municipal bonds issued by a South Carolina road construction
project, "Connector 2000."  Connector 2000 sought bankruptcy
protection and as part of that bankruptcy, the court cancelled
certain bonds.  In both the New York Supreme Court and in the
Northern District of Mississippi, ACA argued that the cancellation
of the bonds eliminated its insurance obligation.

In Oppenheimer, Judge Ramos found that the project's bankruptcy
filing did not relieve ACA of its insurance obligation.  The
District Court denied ACA's motion to dismiss-which was largely
based on its argument that the case in New York was wrongly
decided-and noted that if Judge Ramos's determination is overruled
by the Appellate Division, ACA could use that decision at summary
judgment.

Davis v. ACA Fin. Guaranty Corp., Cause No. 3:11-CV-093-MPM-SAA
(N.D. Miss. May 9, 2013, 2013)


AMYRIS INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP has filed a securities class
action against Amyris, Inc., and its President and CEO, John G.
Melo.  The action, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, is on behalf of purchasers of
Amyris securities between April 29, 2011 and February 8, 2012,
inclusive.  The class action seeks relief for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on defendants' false
and misleading statements, and omissions of material information
during the Class Period concerning, among other things, Amyris'
ability to produce Biofene in commercially meaningful volumes.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AMRS securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 15, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint in the class action can be obtained at:
http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/amrs

To discuss this action, please contact J. Elazar Fruchter at
jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com or call toll free 866-582-8140.

Amyris uses patented engineered microbes to convert plant-based
sugars into renewable chemicals, including a chemical trademarked
as Biofene, which can be used in the manufacture of transportation
fuels.

On April 29, 2011, Amyris issued a press release confirming that
it had designed a facility that would allow it to commence
sustained commercial production of Biofene.  In May 2011, and
again in August 2011, Amyris executives made further statements
indicating that Amyris could produce Biofene in commercial
quantities.

However, on November 1, 2011, Amyris announced a slowdown in
production of Biofene.  On this news, the next trading day,
Amyris' share price fell over 20% from $19.36 per share to $15.47
per share.

On February 9, 2012, Amyris executives reported a further slowdown
in Biofene production, and stated that the company was no longer
forecasting positive cash flow from operations and would require
additional equity financing.  On this news, Amyris shares fell an
additional 28%.

                       About Wohl & Fruchter

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- represents
plaintiffs in litigation arising from fraud and other fiduciary
breaches by corporate managers, as well as other complex
litigation matters.


BASELL AF: Noteholders' Suit v. BNYMellon Over Buyout Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that The Bank
of New York Mellon Corp. has defeated claims that it negligently
signed off on Basell AF SCA's disastrous leveraged buyout of
Lyondell Chemical Co., costing Basell noteholders almost $1
billion.

In a brief order issued on May 21, New York's Appellate Division,
First Department dismissed a lawsuit brought against BNYMellon by
a dozen noteholders, including the hedge funds Arrowgrass Master
Fund Ltd and Caspian Capital Partners LP.  Expanding on a lower
court ruling from last year, the appeals court held that the
claims are barred by a settlement agreement that noteholders
reached in a bankruptcy court proceeding.

BNY Mellon is the indenture trustee for ten-year notes Basell
issued to investors in 2005.  To buy Lyondell in 2007, Basell
borrowed almost $20 billion from banks, increasing its debt load
ten-fold.  Lyondell filed for bankruptcy 13 months later.  Stuck
in line behind senior creditors, holders of the Basell notes
complained that they were able to claw back only a small part of
their alleged $1 billion in losses.

In 2010, the noteholders sued BNY Mellon for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.  They alleged that the
banks caused them "massive damage" by failing to halt the Lyondell
buyout.  "BNY, inexplicably, signed an intercreditor agreement
that enabled the leveraged buyout to go forward, and that
purported to subordinate the [notes] to the massive debt generated
by the LBO," the hedge funds's lawyers at Kasowitz Benson Torres &
Friedman wrote in their complaint.

The New York Supreme Court justice assigned to the case, Shirley
Werner Kornreich, ruled in February 2012 that most the the claims
could proceed.  She dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim,
but allowed the contract and negligence claims to go forward.

The First Department has now tossed the entire case.  Siding with
BNYMellon's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison,
the appellate court ruled that note holders waived their claims as
part of a 2009 settlement they reached in U.S. bankruptcy court.

BNY Mellon is represented by a Paul Weiss team led by Leslie Fagen
and Allan Arffa.  "I think the case confirms the long-standing
principle that an indenture trustee's duties are limited to those
set forth in the relevant indenture agreement," Mr. Arffa said in
an e-mailed statement.

The Kasowitz Benson lawyers on the losing end of the May 21 ruling
include Sheron Korpus, Marc Kasowitz, and David Mark. Korpus
didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.


BAYER AG: Enforced Diversify in Mirena MDL Raises Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Victor Li, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that when it
comes to top-down efforts to beef up diversity in the legal
profession, the instigators tend to be law firms themselves --
driven by conviction or public relations savvy.  But for years
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan has been prodding
firms to diversify from the bench, using his power to appoint
plaintiffs' counsel as a means to cajole lawyers to find more
women and minorities to lead class action lawsuits.

It's been a fairly lonely crusade for Judge Baer, who told the New
York Law Journal in 2010 that law firms were "behind where they
should be" on the diversity front.  On May 17, however, Reuters
reported that at least one other judge has flexed her judicial
muscles on diversity in a lead counsel scrum.  U.S. District Judge
Cathy Seibel of White Plains, N.Y., asked four plaintiffs firms
vying for leadership roles in multidistrict litigation against
Bayer AG to consider adding women attorneys to their proposed
teams.

Judge Seibel made the request during a status conference in the
case, in which women allege that Bayer's Mirena intrauterine birth
control device punctured their uterus or migrated to other parts
of their bodies.  According to Reuters, the judge told Fred
Thompson of Motley Rice, James Ronca of Anapol Schwartz, Matthew
McCauley of Parker Waichman, and Diogenes Kekatos of Seeger Weiss
that she considered the issue to be "important."

The impetus for Judge Seibel's comments in Bayer litigation came
at least partly from rival plaintiffs lawyers.  One letter, filed
with the court by plaintiffs' attorney Alyson Oliver of Michigan,
objected to the all-male leadership committee by arguing that the
class members would be best served by having female attorneys
advocating on their behalf.  Ms. Oliver also pointed out that
female lawyers might generate more empathy from jurors.  "I am
confident the defense will strategically make room for these
benefits on their team; and I believe our litigants will be
disadvantaged if we don't consider the strategic benefits of doing
the same," Ms. Oliver wrote.

The team representing Bayer includes at least two women: lead
counsel Shayna Cook of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum and
Marie Woodbury of Shook, Hardy & Bacon.  Other attorneys include
James Shepherd of Shook Hardy and William Harrington of Bleakley
Platt & Schmidt.

Judge Seibel stopped short of ordering the plaintiffs firms to
take steps to include more female lawyers.  Judge Baer, on the
other hand, has issued several orders encouraging plaintiffs firms
to diversify.  In the Gildan Activewear class action in 2010, for
instance, he ordered the lead plaintiffs firms to "make every
effort" to put at least one woman and one minority lawyer on the
case.  Judge Baer made similar pronouncements in class action
suits against JPMorgan Chase & Co., Sirius XM, and Dynex
Securities.

Those orders haven't always been well-received.  The issue of
enforced diversity has irked conservative public interest lawyers
like Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness and the
Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights.  Mr. Frank
took issue with Judge Baer's diversity mandate in the Sirius XM
litigation as part of a larger objection to a settlement in the
case.  The CIR also objected and filed an amicus brief when the
issue went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  The appeals court didn't rule on the diversity issue,
finding that it lacked standing to do so since there was no actual
injury.

The Am Law Daily reached out to Mr. Frank for comment on Judge
Seibel's pronouncement but didn't hear back.


BP AMERICA: Texas AG Files Suit over April 2010 Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cohen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott announced a lawsuit on May 17 against
BP America and other defendants for their contributions to the
April 2010 Deepwater Horizon offshore oil spill.

The enforcement action against BP America, Anadarko, Halliburton,
Transocean and other related entities seeks economic damages,
natural resources damages and civil penalties.  The lawsuit
follows years of work with other Gulf states, the federal
government and BP to resolve damages connected with harm caused to
the region by the oil spill.

The parties involved have not been able to completely resolve
claims related to the disaster, which resulted in the state of
Texas filing an enforcement action to preserve its claims against
BP and other defendants.  Mr. Abbott's office anticipates that the
case will be consolidated with a case already in progress in New
Orleans.  Mr. Abbott's office filed the lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Beaumont.  The
lawsuit seeks both monetary actions and funds that would be used
for projects to offset and mitigate natural resource damages in
Texas.  The enforcement action seeks civil penalties for each day
of oil discharge, civil penalties for every barrel of oil that was
discharged, lost state hotel occupancy tax and mixed beverage tax
revenue, lost sales tax, revenue lost from state park entrance,
facility, activity and concession fees and damages to natural
resources.  The lawsuit also seeks court costs and attorney fees.

The lawsuit follows partial settlements of federal claims by
Transocean and BP, including multiple criminal plea agreements.


CANADA DRY: Recalls Mott's Garden Cocktail Due to Possible Mould
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:         May 30, 2013
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type:        Notification
Subcategory:           Microbiological - Non harmful
                       (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall:      Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:        Canada Dry Mott's Inc.
Distribution:          National
CFIA reference number: 7995

   Brand
   name     Common name           Size     Code(s) on product
   ----     -----------           ----     ------------------
   Mott's   Garden Cocktail -     240 ml   121112WK, 012213WK,
            100% Vegetable Juice           022513WK, 022613WK,
                                           032213WK, 040613WK
   UPC: 0 65912 00478 2


CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated N.Y. Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit in New York was granted in March 213, according to
the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On June 1, 2010, the Company announced that it would postpone the
release of its financial results for the first quarter ended March
31, 2010, and its quarterly earnings call pending the outcome of
an investigation by the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors
that had been launched after the Company received a subpoena from
the SEC requesting documents relating to, among other things,
certain sales transactions in 2009.  Thereafter, six class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the New York cases, and another
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the California case.
The New York cases were consolidated into a single action in
December 2010.

On January 5, 2011, the California case was dismissed by the
plaintiff, who became a member of the lead plaintiff group in the
New York action.  On March 11, 2011, a Consolidated Complaint was
filed with respect to the New York action.  The Consolidated
Complaint alleges generally that its financial disclosures during
2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading; asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder; and names the Company, its chief executive officer and
its former chief financial officer as defendants.  The Company
filed its motion to dismiss in May 2011, which was taken under
submission by the Court in July 2011.  On March 30, 2012, the
Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint with leave to amend,
and the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint against
the same defendants on April 19, 2012.

On March 28, 2013, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing the Amended
Consolidated Complaint with prejudice.  On March 29, 2013, the
Court entered judgment in the matter.

Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- designs,
develops and manufactures solar wafers, cells and solar module
products that convert sunlight into electricity for a variety of
uses.  The Company is incorporated in Canada, headquartered in
Ontario and conducts most of its manufacturing operations in
China.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Motions in Ontario Suit to Be Argued in June
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification and a motion for leave to assert
are scheduled for argument in Ontario in June 2013, according to
Canadian Solar Inc.'s April 26, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On June 1, 2010, the Company announced that it would postpone the
release of its financial results for the first quarter ended March
31, 2010, and its quarterly earnings call pending the outcome of
an investigation by the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors
that had been launched after the Company received a subpoena from
the SEC requesting documents relating to, among other things,
certain sales transactions in 2009.  Thereafter, six class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, which were consolidated, and
another class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, which was
dismissed.

In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on August 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges
generally that its financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were
false or misleading and brings claims under the shareholders'
relief provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act, Part
XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on
negligent misrepresentation.  In December 2010, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the
Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the claims and potential
claims advanced by the plaintiff.  The court dismissed the
Company's motion on August 29, 2011.  On March 30, 2012, the
Ontario Court of Appeal denied the Company's appeal with regard to
its jurisdictional motion.  On November 29, 2012, the Supreme
Court of Canada denied the Company's application for leave to
appeal the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal.  The Company's
jurisdiction motion is therefore at an end.  To proceed with the
case, the plaintiff must now bring his own motions for class
certification and for leave to assert the statutory cause of
action under the Ontario Securities Act.  These motions are
scheduled for argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
June 2013.

The Company believes the Ontario action is without merit and it is
defending it vigorously.

Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- designs,
develops and manufactures solar wafers, cells and solar module
products that convert sunlight into electricity for a variety of
uses.  The Company is incorporated in Canada, headquartered in
Ontario and conducts most of its manufacturing operations in
China.


CHERYL'S: Recalls 10,588 Buttercream Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl's of Westerville, Ohio, is recalling 10,588 individually
wrapped 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies
because the wrapper on these affected cookies may not specifically
state that the cookie contains Peanuts, a known allergen.  The
Company's investigation revealed that some of the packages of its
Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies actually contained
its Fudge Buttercream Frosted Peanut Butter Cookie.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Please note however that the wrappers of all of the 1.6 oz.
Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies do contain the
following allergen statement: "Produced in a plant that also
handles Peanuts and Treenuts".

The 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies were sold
at Cheryl's retail stores located in Columbus and Dayton, Ohio and
nationwide via Cheryl's Web site located at
http://www.cheryls.com/during the months of April and May, 2013.

The recalled products contain Lot No.: 88 13 1 on the packaging
wrapper.

Pictures of Cheryl's 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin
Cookies are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm354659.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
affected cookies were distributed in packaging that did not
specifically reveal that the ingredients of the cookies contained
Peanuts.  The Company's investigation revealed that some of the
packages of its Buttercream Frosted Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies
actually contained its Fudge Buttercream Frosted Peanut Butter
Cookie.

Consumers who have purchased Cheryl's 1.6 oz. Buttercream Frosted
Cinnamon Pumpkin Cookies are urged to dispose of the affected
products and contact Cheryl's for a full refund and a
complimentary $20 "Saving Pass" for use with qualified future
purchases from Cheryl's.

Consumer with questions may contact Joseph Pittito at 516-237-
6131(Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time).


CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Minnick" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Clearwire Corporation's settlement
of the class action lawsuit filed by Chad Minnick, et al., remains
pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by
a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an
unlawful early termination fee, or ETF; and invoked allegedly
unconscionable provisions of the Company's Terms of Service to the
detriment of subscribers.  Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a
determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-
wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of the Company's
Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the Company from
collecting ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any
ETFs paid by the Company's subscribers; equitable relief; and an
award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint adding seven additional
plaintiffs.  The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The Court stayed discovery pending its ruling
on the motion, and on February 2, 2010, granted the Company's
motion to dismiss in its entirety.  The Plaintiffs appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March 29, 2011, the Court of
Appeals entered an Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court
of Washington requesting guidance on a question of Washington
state law.  On May 23, 2012, the Washington Supreme Court issued a
decision holding that an ETF is a permissible alternative
performance provision.  The Court of Appeals has stayed the
matter.

The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On December 19,
2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement
and entered final judgment.  On January 18, 2013, objectors
appealed the Court's final judgment and settlement order to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Appeal in "Newton" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Clearwire Corporation's settlement
of a class action lawsuit in California remains pending, according
to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against
Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.  The Plaintiff contends Clearwire's
advertisements of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false
and misleading.  The Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its
contracts with customers by not delivering the Internet service as
advertised.  The Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to
Clearwire's network management practices.  The Plaintiff seeks
class certification; declaratory and injunctive relief;
unspecified restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for
Clearwire service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.  On June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel
arbitration.  The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On
December 19, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of
the settlement and entered final judgment.

On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed the Court's final judgment
and settlement order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Dennings" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
summary affirmance in an appeal in the class action lawsuit filed
by Angelo Dennings, according to the Company's April 26, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint generally
alleges the Company slow network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates the Company's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's
advertising and marketing claims.  The Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, the Company charges an early termination fee, or ETF,
or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the
circumstances.  The claims asserted include breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust
enrichment.  The Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified
damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's
ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged
circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging
in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest;
and attorneys' fees and costs.  On January 13, 2011, the Company
filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the
alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  In response to Clearwire's
motions, the plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its
complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate
jurisdictions.  The Plaintiff further added new claims of
violation of Consumer Protection statutes under various state
laws.

On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1)
compel the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual
claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this case pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, No. 09-893, referred to as Concepcion, and (3) to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.  The Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's
motion to stay the litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties
stipulated to stay the litigation.

The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On December 19, 2012,
the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered final judgment.  On January 18, 2013, objectors appealed
the Court's final judgment and settlement order to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Plaintiffs and Clearwire filed a
motion for appeal bond requiring objectors to secure payment of
costs in connection with the appeal.  The Court of Appeals ordered
the objectors to post the appeal bond.  The Plaintiffs also filed
a motion for summary affirmance.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Kwan" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement
of the class action lawsuit initiated by Rosa Kwan, according to
the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In September 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges the
Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law.  On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  The
Company, then, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with prejudice and
granting the plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint.  The
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state
law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection
agency, as a co-defendant.  On January 27, 2011, the court granted
the parties' stipulation allowing the plaintiff to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives.  The
Company, then, filed motions to compel the newly-added customer
plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims.  On January 3,
2012, the Court denied without prejudice the Company's motions to
compel arbitration because of factual issues to be resolved at an
evidentiary hearing.  The parties stipulated to allow a Fifth
Amended Complaint.  The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.  On
December 27, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities.  The
amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial
statements.  If the Court does not grant final approval of the
settlement, this case will remain in the early stages of
litigation and its outcome is unknown.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend "Wuest" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit brought by Richard Wuest in California, according
to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action
against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco
County.  The Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated
California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably
Section 632.7, which prohibits the recording of communications
made from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of
all parties to the communication.  The Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages and injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, pre and post
judgment interest.  Clearwire removed the matter to federal court.
On November 2, 2012, Clearwire filed an answer to the complaint.
The Company says the litigation is in the early stages, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be
made at this time.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Defends Sprint Merger Suits in Del. and Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is defending itself from class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with Sprint Nextel
Corporation, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 17, 2012, the Company an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(Merger Agreement) with Sprint Nextel Corporation and Collie
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sprint (the Merger Sub), pursuant to which Sprint
agreed to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's
Clearwire Corporation Class A common stock that is not currently
owned by Sprint, SOFTBANK CORP., or any of their respective
affiliates.  The transactions under the Merger Agreement are
subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the
Company's stockholders and the closing of the pending merger
between Sprint and SoftBank and certain affiliates thereof.  If
all of the conditions under the Merger Agreement are satisfied by
the parties, following the consummation of the Proposed Merger,
the Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint.

                        Delaware Actions

On December 12, 2012, stockholder Crest Financial Limited filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco LLC and
Eagle River Holdings, LLC, purportedly brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of the Company.  On December 14, 2012,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on January 2, 2013,
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Also, on December 12,
2012, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an expedited trial.
Following a hearing on January 10, 2013, the Court denied the
motion to expedite without prejudice.  The Court also directed the
parties to consolidate this lawsuit with the other Delaware
actions.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction between Sprint and the Company, that Sprint and Eagle
River breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by
virtue of their alleged status as controlling stockholders,
including with respect to the SoftBank Transaction, and that the
Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by Sprint and Eagle River.  The lawsuit also alleges that the
Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, and that the
controlling stockholders acted to enrich themselves at the expense
of the minority stockholders.  The lawsuit seeks to permanently
enjoin the SoftBank Transaction, permanently enjoin the Proposed
Merger, permanently enjoin Sprint from allegedly interfering with
the Company's plans to raise capital or sell its spectrum and to
recover compensatory damages.  This litigation is in the early
stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential
losses cannot be made at this time.

On December 20, 2012, stockholder Abraham Katsman filed a putative
class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company, its directors, Sprint and SoftBank, purportedly bought on
behalf of the public stockholders of the Company.  The lawsuit
alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that Sprint
breached duties owed to the Company's public stockholders by
virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that
SoftBank aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by Sprint and the directors of the Company.  The lawsuit also
alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company and
that the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair
process.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and,
should the Proposed Merger be consummated, rescission of the
Proposed Merger, and to recover unspecified rescissory and
compensatory damages.  This litigation is in the early stages, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot
be made at this time.

On December 28, 2012, stockholder Kenneth L. Feigeles filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle
River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
the Company.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's
public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling
stockholder, and that the Company, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle
River aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Sprint and the directors of the Company.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, and that
the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process.
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the
Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger,
and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages.
This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and
an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

On December 28, 2012, stockholder Joan Litwin filed a putative
class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco and Eagle River,
purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to the
Company's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status as
controlling stockholders, and that the Company aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint, Eagle River and
the directors of the Company.  The lawsuit also alleges that the
Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that Sprint is using
its position as controlling stockholder to obtain the Company's
spectrum for itself to the detriment of the public stockholders,
and that the directors of the Company allowed the Company to
stagnate to benefit Sprint and Eagle River.  The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be
consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger.  The lawsuit also
seeks to enjoin Sprint from interfering with the Company's build-
out plans or any future sale of spectrum, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages.  This litigation is in the early stages, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot
be made at this time.

On or about January 3, 2013, stockholder David DeLeo filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub,
purportedly brought on behalf of the Company's public stockholders
of the Company.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Proposed Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to the Company's
public stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling
stockholder, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors
of the Company.  The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger
Consideration undervalues the Company, that Sprint and the
directors of the Company misappropriated non-public information
that was not disclosed to the plaintiffs, and that the Proposed
Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process.  The lawsuit
seeks a declaratory judgment that the proposed transaction between
Sprint and the Company was entered into in breach of Sprint's
fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the proposed
transaction between Sprint and the Company and, should the
Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger,
and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages.
This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and
an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

                       Washington Actions

On December 20, 2012, stockholder Joe Kuhnle filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County, against the Company and its directors, purportedly brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, the Kuhnle
Action.  The Kuhnle Action alleges that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Proposed Merger, and that the Company aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the
Company.  The Kuhnle Action also alleges that the Merger
Consideration undervalues the Company, that the Proposed Merger
was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, that the deal
protection devices favor Sprint to the detriment of the public
stockholders, and that the directors of the Company failed to make
necessary disclosures in their public filings.  The Kuhnle Action
seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered
into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, a preliminary
injunction preventing the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed
Merger be consummated, rescission of the Proposed Merger, and to
recover unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages.  On
January 18, 2013, the Company and the other defendants
collectively filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Kuhnle Action
in favor of the prior-filed Delaware actions.  On January 18,
2013, the Company and the other defendants opposed the plaintiff's
motion to expedite discovery.  The Court denied the plaintiff's
motion to expedite discovery and granted defendants' motion to
stay the Kuhnle matter pending resolution of actions in Delaware.
On January 22, 2013, the parties stipulated to consolidate the
three King County Washington lawsuits -- the Kuhnle Action, along
with both the Millen Action and the Rowe Action -- into one
matter: In Re Clearwire Corporation Shareholder Litigation.  This
litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an
estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

On December 20, 2012, stockholder Doug Millen filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County, against the Company and its directors, purportedly brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, the Millen
Action.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's public
stockholders in connection with the Proposed Merger, and that the
Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by the directors of the Company.  The lawsuit also alleges that
the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that the
Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, that
the deal protection devices favor Sprint to the detriment of the
public stockholders, and that the directors of the Company failed
to make necessary disclosures in connection with the announcement
of the transaction.  The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that
the Proposed Merger was entered into in breach of defendants'
fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the Proposed Merger,
and rescission of the Proposed Merger to the extent it has already
been consummated.  This litigation is in the early stages, its
outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses cannot
be made at this time.

On December 31, 2012, stockholder Clinton Rowe filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub,
purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company, the Rowe Action.  The lawsuit alleges that Sprint and the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Proposed Merger, and that the Company, Sprint
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by the directors of the Company.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the Merger Consideration undervalues the Company, that the
Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, and
that the directors of the Company did not protect the Company
against numerous conflicts of interest.  The lawsuit seeks a
declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered into in
breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing
the Proposed Merger, rescission of the transaction to the extent
it has already been implemented, and the imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff class upon any
benefits improperly received by defendants.  This litigation is in
the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential losses cannot be made at this time.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Faces "Lindsay" Class Action Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed by
Kenneth Lindsay in Minnesota, according to the Company's
April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others,
filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC
and Workforce Logic LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege claims
individually and on behalf of a purported nationwide collective
class under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FSLA, from April
9, 2010, to the present.  The lawsuit alleges that defendants
violated the FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant
regulations, regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
for hours worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock"
before, during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper
deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and
bonuses.  The Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  Clearwire says it
will respond to the complaint in due course.  The litigation is in
the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential loss cannot be made at this time.

Kirkland, Washington-based Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR)
-- http://www.clearwire.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a provider of 4G mobile broadband network
services in 68 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta and Boston.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeals From Dismissal of ARS Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of two class action lawsuits relating
to auction rate securities remain pending, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET
AL. and RUSSELL MAYFIELD, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., are
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of auction rate securities (ARS) issuers and
investors, respectively, against Citigroup, CGM and various other
financial institutions. In these actions, plaintiffs allege
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising out of
defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially restrain trade in
the ARS market.  On January 15, 2009, the defendants filed motions
to dismiss the complaints in these actions.  On
January 26, 2010, both actions were dismissed.  The actions are
now pending on appeal.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Final OK of AHM Suit Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup awaits final approval of its settlements of class action
lawsuits relating to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.,
according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form
10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On March 21, 2008, 19 alleged class actions brought by
shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, were consolidated under the caption IN RE AMERICAN HOME
MORTGAGE SECURITIES LITIGATION.  On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained
in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in
connection with two offerings of American Home Mortgage securities
underwritten by CGM, among others.  The Defendants, including
Citigroup and CGM, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
September 12, 2008.  On July 7, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of settlements reached with all
defendants (including Citigroup and CGM).  On July 31, 2009, the
District Court entered an order preliminarily approving
settlements reached with all defendants (including Citigroup and
CGM).

On July 27, 2009, UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS v. STRAUSS, ET AL. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York asserting, among other claims, claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Utah state law arising out
of an offering of American Home Mortgage common stock underwritten
by CGM.  This matter has been settled.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Awaits Ruling in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit commenced
by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al., according to the Company's
April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On August 25, 2008, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, a wholly owned,
indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, and two ratings agencies
were named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").
The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings
assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and
misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately
reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential
mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV.  The plaintiffs
currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and
negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million
of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.  The plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was denied in June 2010.  The court denied
MS & Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting
fraud claim in August 2012.  MS & Co.'s motion for summary
judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on
November 30, 2012, is pending.

The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013.  There are
currently 14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of
approximately $638 million.  The Plaintiffs are also seeking
punitive damages. Based on currently available information, MS &
Co. believes that the defendants could incur a loss up to
approximately $638 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest,
fees and costs.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss AIG Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an amended consolidated securities lawsuit
relating to American International Group, Inc., remains pending,
according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form
10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Beginning in October 2008, four alleged class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York by American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") investors
and shareholders.  These actions allege violations of Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended arising out
of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the
registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with
offerings of AIG debt securities and common stock, some of which
were underwritten by CGM.  On March 20, 2009, the four alleged
class actions were consolidated by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN
RE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION.
The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 19,
2009, which includes two Citigroup affiliates among the
underwriter defendants.  On August 5, 2009, the underwriter
defendants, including CGM and Citigroup Global Markets Limited
(CGML), moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Suits v. Underwriters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits brought against various underwriting
syndicates, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26,
2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

In its capacity as a member of various underwriting syndicates,
CGM has been named as a defendant in several subprime-related
actions asserted against various issuers of debt and other
securities.  Most of these actions involve claims asserted on
behalf of alleged classes of purchasers of securities for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Consolidated Litigations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself against consolidated
securities and bond litigations, according to Commodity Advisors
Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On September 30 and October 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup
entities, certain current and former directors and officers of
Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of
Citigroup notes (including CGM) were named as defendants in two
alleged class actions filed in New York state court but since
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  These actions allege violations of Sections
11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising
out of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and
interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related
issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008.  On December 10,
2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel
were appointed.  On January 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

On March 13, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On July 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion and
order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as amended, but denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11.  On
September 30, 2010, the district court entered a scheduling order
in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.  Fact discovery began in
November 2010, and the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is
pending.  The Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the alleged
class' alleged damages.  Because of the preliminary stage of the
proceedings, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, for this action or predict the
timing of its eventual resolution.

On March 13 and 16, 2009, two cases were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended --
BUCKINGHAM v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. and CHEN v. CITIGROUP INC.,
ET AL. and were later designated as related to IN RE CITIGROUP
INC. BOND LITIGATION.  On May 7, 2009, BUCKINGHAM and CHEN were
consolidated with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.

On April 9, 2009, another case asserting violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended -- PELLEGRINI v. CITIGROUP
INC., ET AL. -- was filed in the United Stated District Court for
the Southern District of New York and the parties have jointly
requested that the PELLEGRINI action be designated as related to
IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP
INC. BOND LITIGATION.  On May 11, 2009, an alleged class action
ASHER, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended in
connection with plaintiffs' investments in certain offerings of
preferred stock issued by Citigroup.  On May 15, 2009, the
plaintiffs in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION requested that
ASHER and PELLEGRINI be consolidated with IN RE CITIGROU P INC.
BOND LITIGATION.  On August 31, 2009, ASHER and PELLEGRINI were
consolidated with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.

On March 23, 2009, a case was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging violations
of both the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 -- BRECHER v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL.  On
April 16, 2009, Citigroup filed a motion before the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer of the BRECHER action to
the Southern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN
RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.  On August 7, 2009, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred BRECHER, ET
AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. to the Southern District of New York
for coordination with IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.

On April 17, 2009, an alleged class action BRECHER, ET AL. v. CGM,
ET AL. was filed in California state court asserting claims
against Citigroup, CGM, and certain of the Citigroup's current and
former directors under California's Business and Professions Code
and Labor Code, as well as under California common law, relating
to, among other things, losses incurred on common stock awarded to
Smith Barney financial advisors in connection with the execution
of their employment contracts.  On May 19, 2009, an amended
complaint was filed.  On July 9, 2009, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation was notified that BRECHER, ET AL. v. CGM,
ET AL. is a potential tag-along action to IN RE CITIGROUP, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION.  On July 15, 2009, after having removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint and to stay all further proceedings pending resolution
of the tag-along petition.  On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in
BRECHER, ET AL. v. CGM, ET AL. voluntarily dismissed the claims
against the individual defendants and moved to remand the
remaining action against Citigroup, CGM, and the Personnel and
Compensation Committee to state court.  On September 8, 2009, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California ordered that defendants show cause as to why there was
federal jurisdiction over the case.  On September 17, 2009, the
defendants responded to the district court's order.

On August 19, 2009, KOCH, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., an
alleged class action, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
participants in Citigroup's Voluntary FA Capital Accumulation
Program ("FA CAP Program") against various defendants, including
Citigroup and CGM, asserting claims under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Minnesota state law in connection with plaintiffs' acquisition of
certain securities through the FA CAP Program.  On September 30,
2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally
transferred KOCH to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as a potential tag-along to IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.  On
October 8, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
BRECHER, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws and Minnesota and
California state law.  The complaint purports to consolidate the
similar claims asserted in KOCH.

In the consolidated action, the lead plaintiffs assert claims on
behalf of an alleged class of participants in Citigroup's
Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan from
November 2006 through January 2009.  On June 7, 2011, the district
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and
subsequently entered judgment.  On November 14, 2011, the district
court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the
judgment and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.
On November 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the
plaintiffs' claims on December 21, 2011.

Several institutions and sophisticated investors that purchased
debt and equity securities issued by Citigroup and related issuers
have also filed actions on their own behalf against Citigroup and
certain of its subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York
and the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.  These
actions assert claims similar to those asserted in the IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION actions.  Collectively, these investors seek damages
exceeding $1 billion.  On June 8, 2012, the defendants filed an
interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit from the district court's decision in INTERNATIONAL
FUND MANAGEMENT S.A., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., holding
that the tolling doctrine set forth in American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), applies to the
statute of repose in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Suits Over Lehman Offerings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits
relating to Lehman Brothers' offerings of securities, according to
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Citigroup has been named in several alleged class action lawsuits
alleging violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended relating to its role as one of numerous
underwriters of offerings of securities issued by Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. and/or Lehman Brothers Inc.  The lawsuits are
currently pending in the United States District Courts for the
Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York
and the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.  On May 2,
2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered a judgment approving a stipulation of
settlement with the underwriter defendants, including Citigroup,
in IN RE LEHMAN BROTHERS EQUITY/DEBT SECURITIES LITIGATION.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Countrywide-Related Suits Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits relating to Countrywide's offerings of
securities remain pending in California, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Citigroup has been named in several alleged class actions lawsuits
alleging violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended relating to its role as one of numerous
underwriters of offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through
certificates issued by Countrywide.  The lawsuits include a
consolidated action filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California and two other lawsuits pending
in the Superior Court of the California, Los Angeles County.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discrimination Suits vs. Citigroup Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Two alleged class actions have been filed alleging claims of
racial discrimination in mortgage lending under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and/or the Civil Rights
Act.  The first action, PUELLO, ET AL. v. CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup and its affiliates in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  The second action, NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE
CO., ET AL., was filed against one of Citigroup's affiliates in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  In each action, the defendants' motions to dismiss
have been denied.  On September 21, 2009, the United States
District Court for the Central District of California denied
defendant CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment and granted
its motion to strike the jury demand.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2013,
Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Global Crossing Suits vs. Citigroup Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On or about January 28, 2003, the lead plaintiff in a consolidated
alleged class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (IN RE GLOBAL CROSSING, LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION) filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Global Crossing, Ltd. and its
subsidiaries, which named as defendants, among others, Citigroup,
CGM and certain executive officers and current and former
employees, asserting claims under the federal securities laws for
allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in
fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest
with Global Crossing in connection with published investment
research.  On March 22, 2004, the lead plaintiff amended its
consolidated complaint to add claims on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Asia Global Crossing.  The added claims asserted
causes of action under the federal securities laws and common law
in connection with CGM's research reports about Global Crossing
and Asia Global Crossing and for CGM's roles as an investment
banker for Global Crossing and as an underwriter in the Global
Crossing and Asia Global Crossing offerings.  The Citigroup-
Related Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims against them
on July 2, 2004.

The plaintiffs and the Citigroup-Related Defendants entered into a
settlement agreement that was preliminarily approved by the Court
on March 8, 2005, and was finally approved on June 30, 2005.  The
amount to be paid in settlement is covered by existing litigation
reserves.

In addition, on or about January 27, 2004, the Global Crossing
Estate Representative filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York an adversary proceeding
against Citigroup and several other financial institutions seeking
to rescind the payment of a $1 billion loan made to a subsidiary
of Global Crossing.  The Citigroup-Related Defendants moved to
dismiss the latter action on May 28, 2004, which motion remains
pending.  In addition, actions asserting claims against Citigroup
and certain of its affiliates relating to CGM Global Crossing
research reports are pending in numerous arbitrations around the
country.  On August 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that narrowed the pending claims.  Citigroup has yet to
respond to the amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2013,
Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: N.J. Carpenters Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by the New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund remains pending in New York, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On October 15, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted lead plaintiffs' amended
motion for class certification in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH
FUND V. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL LLC, ET AL., having previously denied
lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification on January 18,
2011.  The Plaintiffs in this action allege violations of Sections
11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and
assert disclosure claims on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential
Accredited Loans, Inc. pursuant or traceable to prospectus
materials filed on March 3, 2006, and April 3, 2007.  CGM is one
of the underwriter defendants.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Over Interbank Offered Rates Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits related to interbank offered rates remain pending,
according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form
10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

                       Regulatory Actions

Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of
Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, and a
consortium of state attorneys general, as well as agencies in
other jurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K.
Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial Services
Agency ("JFSA"), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss
Competition Commission, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore,
are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding
submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various
interbank offered rates and other benchmark rates.  As members of
a number of such panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received
requests for information and documents.  Citigroup is cooperating
with the investigations and inquiries and is responding to the
requests.

On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action against
Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. ("CGMJ") for, among other
things, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about the
Euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate ("TIBOR") and the Japanese
yen London interbank offered rate ("LIBOR").  The JFSA issued a
business improvement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in
derivatives related to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from
January 10 to January 23, 2012.  On the same day, the JFSA also
took administrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. ("CJL") for
conduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted that
the communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJL
about Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL's
management team.

Additionally, beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class
actions and other private civil lawsuits were filed in various
courts against banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their
affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries.  The
actions, which assert various federal and state law claims
relating to the setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the
Southern District of New York.  On February 9, 2012, an additional
alleged class action was filed against certain of the banks that
served on the LIBOR panel, including a Citigroup subsidiary.  That
action has been consolidated into the multi district litigation
proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New
York.  A number of additional alleged class actions were filed in
the Southern District of New York against banks that served on
certain interbank offered rates panels and certain of those banks'
affiliates, including Citigroup affiliates.

                 Antitrust and Other Litigation

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD)
LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in the multidistrict-litigation
("MDL") proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN
RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.).  Judge
Buchwald has appointed interim lead class counsel for, and
consolidated amended complaints have been filed on behalf of,
three separate alleged classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter
("OTC") purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR;
(ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to
USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt
securities. Each of these alleged classes alleges that the panel
bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of
the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby causing
the plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they purchased.
Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding are individual civil
actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities alleging that
the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress the USD LIBOR
rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and California state law,
causing the Schwab entities to suffer losses on USD LIBOR-linked
financial instruments they owned.  The Plaintiffs in these actions
seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the
alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman
Act.  The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, have
moved to dismiss all of the actions that were consolidated into
the MDL proceeding as of June 29, 2012.  Briefing on the motion to
dismiss was completed on September 27, 2012.  Judge Buchwald has
stayed all subsequently filed actions that fall within the scope
of the MDL until the motion to dismiss has been resolved.
Citigroup and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in the 17 such stayed
actions that have been consolidated with or marked as related to
the MDL proceeding.

Eleven of these actions have been brought on behalf of various
alleged plaintiff classes, including (i) banks, savings and loans
institutions and credit unions that allegedly suffered losses on
loans they made at interest rates tied to USD LIBOR, (ii) holders
of adjustable-rate mortgages tied to USD LIBOR, and (iii)
individual and municipal purchasers of various financial
instruments tied to USD LIBOR.  The remaining six actions have
been brought by individual plaintiffs, including an entity that
allegedly purchased municipal bonds and various California
counties, municipalities, and related public entities that
invested in various derivatives tied to USD LIBOR.  The Plaintiffs
in each of the 17 stayed actions allege that the panel bank
defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act,
RICO, and/or state antitrust and racketeering laws, and several
plaintiffs also assert common law claims, including fraud, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, interference with
economic advantage, and/or breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and, where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive
relief.

In addition, on August 8, 2012, a new alleged class action
captioned LIEBERMAN ET AL. V. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG was filed in
the Southern District of New York against various USD LIBOR panel
banks, including Citibank, on behalf of purchasers who owned a
preferred equity security on which dividends were payable at a
rate linked to USD LIBOR.  The Plaintiffs in this action assert
unjust enrichment and antitrust claims under the laws of various
states, alleging that the panel banks colluded to artificially
suppress USD LIBOR, thereby lowering the dividends plaintiffs
received on their securities.  On October 4, 2012, another new
alleged class action captioned ADAMS ET AL. V. BANK OF AMERICA
CORP. was filed in the Southern District of New York against
various USD LIBOR panel banks and their affiliates, including
Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., on behalf of an alleged class of
individual adjustable rate mortgage borrowers.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the panel banks manipulated USD LIBOR to raise rates
on certain dates in order to increase plaintiffs' payment
obligations, in violation of federal and New York state antitrust
law.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory damages, treble
damages, and injunctive relief.  Judge Buchwald has consolidated
these cases into the MDL proceeding.

In addition, on November 27, 2012, an action captioned MARAGOS V.
BANK OF AMERICA CORP. ET AL. was filed on behalf of the County of
Nassau against various USD LIBOR panel banks, including Citibank,
N.A., and the other defendants with whom the plaintiff had entered
into interest rate swap transactions.  The action was commenced in
state court and subsequently removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The plaintiff asserts
claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices under New York law
against the panel bank defendants based on allegations that the
panel banks colluded to artificially suppress USD LIBOR, thereby
lowering the payments the plaintiff received in connection with
various interest rate swap transactions.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and treble damages.  The defendants have
sought consolidation of this action with the MDL proceeding.

Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of an alleged class of persons and entities who transacted
in exchange-traded Euroyen futures and option contracts between
June 2006 and September 2010.  This action is captioned LAYDON V.
MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL.  The complaint names as defendants banks
that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in
the calculation of Japanese Yen LIBOR and the Tokyo Inter-Bank
Offered Rate (TIBOR), and certain affiliates of some of those
banks, including Citibank, N.A. and Citibank, Japan Ltd.  The
complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of
purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and
asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Sherman Act, and state consumer protection statutes.  The
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages under the
Sherman Act, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks
that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in
the calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain
affiliates of some of those banks, including Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup, CJL and CGMJ.  The complaint alleges that the
plaintiffs were injured as a result of purported manipulation of
those reference interest rates, and asserts claims arising under
the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages
under the Sherman Act, and injunctive relief.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Suits Relating to Adelphia Offerings Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits arising from Adelphia Communications Corporation's
offerings of securities remain pending, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia
Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment
banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and
Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the "Citigroup
Parties").  The complaint alleged that the Citigroup Parties and
numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank
Holding Company Act, the Bankruptcy Code, and common law.  It
sought an unspecified amount of damages.  In November 2003, a
similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders
Committee of Adelphia, asserting additional statutory and common
law claims.  In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with
respect to the complaints of the two committees.  Those motions
were decided by the bankruptcy court, and were granted in part and
denied in part.  The district court affirmed in part and reversed
in part the bankruptcy court's decision.  The Adelphia Recovery
Trust ("ART"), which replaced the committees as the plaintiff in
the action, filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Adelphia
Estate, consolidating the two prior complaints; motions to dismiss
the amended complaint and answers were filed.  The district court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The ART's appeal to the
Second Circuit from that partial dismissal is pending.

Before the district court, the parties are briefing summary
judgment.  On September 22, 2010, the ART agreed in principle to
settle its claims against numerous prepetition lenders and
investment banks, including Citigroup, in the action entitled
ADELPHIA RECOVERY TRUST v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., 05 Civ.
9050 (S.D.N.Y.).  The agreement in principle is subject to
execution of a final settlement agreement and court approval.

In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil
actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities
in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September
1997 and October 2001.  Three of the complaints also assert claims
against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A.  All of the complaints
allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the
complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the
common law.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.  In December
2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before
the same judge of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In February 2004, motions to
dismiss the class and individual actions pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York were
filed.  In May and July of 2005, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss
several claims, based on the running of applicable statute of
limitations, asserted in the alleged class and individual actions
being coordinated under IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION.  With the exception of one
individual action that was dismissed with prejudice, the court
granted the alleged class and individual plaintiffs leave to re-
plead certain of those claims the court found to be time-barred.
Without admitting any liability, CGM and numerous other financial
institution defendants settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of
$250 million, and the settlement was approved in November 2006.
Two of the additional remaining individual complaints have been
settled.  Following settlements of the class action, which is
pending appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain
outstanding.  The Second Circuit is considering whether the
plaintiff in one has proper standing to sue.  In September 2007,
motions to dismiss in the other case were granted in part and
denied in part.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Wage and Hour Violation Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour laws against various Citigroup businesses remain
pending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s April 26,
2013, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly owned by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its
affiliates, were named in alleged class actions alleging that
certain present and former employees in California were entitled
to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to
certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were
entitled to reimbursement for employment related expenses incurred
by them.  The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of
2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class
of California employees.  Similar complaints have been
subsequently filed against CGM on behalf of certain statewide or
nationwide alleged classes in (i) the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New
Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of
Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii)
the New Jersey Superior Court.  Without admitting any liability,
CGM reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court
approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98
million of various class actions asserting violations of state and
federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state
laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions.  Additional
alleged class action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against
various other Citigroup businesses.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as Energy Advisors
Portfolio L.P., was organized in 2006 in Delaware and is based in
New York.  The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve
capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and
indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies,
interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products
and precious and base metals.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: 3rd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Video Game Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that in a case of first impression, a split panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has restored a cause of
action by a former college football player who says his likeness
has been appropriated without his consent for use in a video game.

In so holding, the appeals court panel reversed a New Jersey
federal district court that had dismissed the ex-player's suit on
grounds that video games are afforded First Amendment protections
as expressive speech.  The Third Circuit agreed that video games
enjoy First Amendment protections, but said intellectual property
rights could impose limits on those free speech rights.

In Hart v. Electronic Arts, the Third Circuit on a 2-1 vote said
that Ryan Hart, who played quarterback for the Rutgers University
football team in 2004 and 2005, could bring a right of publicity
claim against Electronic Arts over its NCAA Football video game.

Hart filed the suit as a purported class action.  He alleges that
the video-game maker had violated his right of publicity by
featuring a player with his jersey number, 13; his height and
weight; and his token left-hand wristband.

Since neither the Third Circuit nor the New Jersey courts had a
"definitive methodology for balancing the tension between the
First Amendment and the right of publicity, we are presented with
a case of first impression," said Third Circuit Judge Joseph A.
Greenaway Jr. for the majority.

Judge Greenaway, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, agreed that
video games are afforded First Amendment protections as expressive
speech.  But he said intellectual property rights -- in this case,
Hart's right of publicity in his own likeness -- may limit those
protections.

"As with other types of expressive conduct, the protection
afforded to games can be limited in situations where the right of
free expression necessarily conflicts with other protected
rights," Judge Greenaway said in Hart.  "The instant case presents
one such situation."

Joining Judge Greenaway in the majority was Senior Judge A.
Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit, who sat by designation.
Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro dissented.

After extensive exploration of various methods used in other
courts, the majority chose to follow the "transformative use
test," adapted from IP law.

"Looking to intellectual property law for guidance on how to
balance property interests against the First Amendment has merit,"
Greenaway said, citing a 2001 case from the Supreme Court of
California, captioned Comedy III Productions v. Saderup.  That
case, over the production of T-shirts with an artist's charcoal
drawing of the Three Stooges, developed the transformative use
test.

"Applying this test, the court concluded that charcoal portraits
of the Three Stooges did violate the Stooges' rights of publicity,
holding that the court could 'discern no significant
transformative or creative contribution' and that 'the
marketability and economic value of [the work] derives primarily
from the fame of the celebrities depicted,'" Judge Greenaway said,
quoting from the California court's opinion.

Ultimately, the Third Circuit ruled similarly in Hart's favor,
holding that the video-game maker didn't change his appearance
enough to escape the football player's right of publicity claim.

Comparing the transformative use test, which Judge Greenaway notes
is relatively new, to the other options, he said: "In our view,
the transformative use test appears to strike the best balance
because it provides courts with a flexible -- yet uniformly
applicable -- analytical framework."

Judge Ambro didn't disagree with the majority's choice of test;
rather, he disagreed with their application of it.

"My colleagues limit effectively their transformative inquiry to
Hart's identity alone, disregarding other features of the work,"
Judge Ambro said.  "Further, my colleagues penalize EA for the
realism and financial success of NCAA Football, a position I find
difficult to reconcile with First Amendment protections
traditionally afforded to true-to-life depictions of real figures
and works produced for profit."

Just about every work -- a book, a painting, a video game -- has
some expressive content, so if the test were to be based on the
product as a whole, there would be no theory of the right to
publicity, said Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- in
response to the dissent.  Mr. Rubin, of Altshuler Berzon in San
Francisco, represented Hart.

He called the majority's opinion "a wonderful precedent-setting
victory that confirms the right of college athletes . . . to
control the commercial use of their identities."

The office of Elizabeth A. McNamara -- lizmcnamara@dwt.com -- of
Davis Wright Tremaine in New York, referred all questions to John
Reseburg, a spokesman for Electronic Arts.  Mr. Reseburg couldn't
immediately be reached for comment.


EXPEDIA INC: Defends 42 Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Tax Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. is defending itself against lawsuits over issues
involving the payment of hotel occupancy taxes, according to the
Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company is currently involved in forty-two lawsuits brought by
or against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of hotel occupancy taxes.  The Company continues to defend
these lawsuits vigorously.  With respect to the principal claims
in these matters, the Company believes that the ordinances at
issue do not apply to the services the Company provides, namely
the facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that the
Company does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.  The
Company believes that the ordinances at issue generally impose
occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control
hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms
or similar accommodations.

Recent developments include:

   * City of Los Angeles, Litigation.  On April 18, 2013, the
     trial court held that the online travel companies are not
     liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the city of Los
     Angeles.

   * San Antonio, Texas Litigation.  On April 4, 2013, the court
     entered a final judgment holding the online travel companies
     liable for hotel occupancy taxes to counties and cities in
     the statewide class.

   * City of Gallup, New Mexico Litigation.  On March 29, 2013,
     the court denied the city of Gallup's claim that the online
     travel companies collected taxes that have not been remitted
     to the city and dismissed the city's remaining claims in the
     case.  On April 2, 2013, the court entered final judgment
     dismissing all claims against the online travel companies
     with prejudice.

   * Nassau County, New York Litigation.  On April 11, 2013, the
     court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

   * City of San Francisco Litigation.  On February 6, 2013, the
     court held that the online travel companies are not liable
     to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the city of San Francisco.

   * Leon County, Florida et al. Litigation.  On February 23,
     2013, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court decision
     in the Leon County, Florida litigation that online travel
     companies are not liable for hotel occupancy taxes.  The
     counties filed a Motion for Rehearing En Banc Or In The
     Alternative Requiring A Certification To The Florida Supreme
     Court Of A Question Of Great Public Interest.  On April 16,
     2013, the court of appeals denied the request for rehearing
     en banc, but granted the petition for certification to the
     Florida Supreme Court.  The Florida Supreme Court will now
     decide if it will hear the case.

   * Denver, Colorado Litigation.  On March 12, 2013, the trial
     court held that the online travel companies are liable for
     hotel occupancy taxes to the city and county of Denver, but
     held that taxes may not be collected for periods prior to
     April 2007 due to the bar of the statute of limitations.

   * State of Wyoming Litigation.  On February 28, 2013, the
     Wyoming Board of Equalization ruled that the online travel
     companies are liable for sales tax on their online services
     to the State of Wyoming.  The online travel companies have
     appealed.  The Wyoming District Court has certified the
     appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which has not yet
     determined whether it will hear the appeal directly or
     require the District Court to hear it first.

   * City of Fargo, North Dakota Litigation.  On February 25,
     2013, the city of Fargo, North Dakota brought an action in
     North Dakota state court against a number of online travel
     companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire.  City
     of Fargo v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (District Court, County of
     Cass, North Dakota).  The complaint alleges claims for
     failure to pay taxes in violation of municipal ordinance,
     conversion, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

   * City of Warrenville, Illinois Litigation.  On April 5, 2013,
     a group of Illinois municipalities (City of Warrenville,
     Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace, Village
     of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford and
     Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in
     Illinois federal court against a number of online travel
     companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire.  City
     of Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et
     al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586 (USDC, N. D. Ill., Eastern
     Division).  The complaint seeks certification of a class of
     all Illinois municipalities (broken into four alleged
     subclasses) that have enacted and collect a tax on the
     percentage of the retail rate that each consumer occupant
     pays for lodging, including service costs, denominated in
     any manner, including but not limited to occupancy tax, a
     hotel or motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege tax, a hotel
     or motel tax, a licensing tax, an accommodations tax, a
     rental receipts tax, a hotel operator's tax, a hotel
     operator's occupation tax, or a room rental, lease or
     letting tax.  The complaint alleges claims for relief for
     declaratory judgment, violations of municipal ordinances,
     conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, imposition
     of a constructive trust, damages and punitive damages.

   * Branson, Missouri Litigation.  On March 1, 2013, Branson
     filed an application to transfer to the Missouri Supreme
     Court.

   * Pine Bluff, Arkansas Litigation.  On February 19, 2013, the
     court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

   * Florida Attorney General Litigation.  On April 8, 2013, the
     plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action.

   * McAllister Arkansas Citizen-Taxpayer Litigation.  On
     February 26, 2013, the online travel companies filed a
     motion for reconsideration of the court's February 2012
     denial of their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
     for judgment on the pleadings.  A hearing on that motion is
     scheduled for April 22, 2013.

   * Broward County, Florida Litigation.  On February 5, 2013,
     Broward County filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's
     decision in favor of the online travel companies.

   * City of Portland Litigation.  A hearing on the city and
     county defendants' motion for leave to amend their complaint
     is scheduled for May 6, 2013.

The Company says it has established a reserve for the potential
settlement of issues related to hotel occupancy tax litigation,
consistent with applicable accounting principles and in light of
all current facts and circumstances, in the amount of $34 million
as of March 31, 2013, which includes amounts expected to be paid
in connection with the developments, and $35 million as of
December 31, 2012.

Certain jurisdictions may require the Company to pay tax
assessments, including occupancy tax assessments, prior to
contesting any such assessments.  This requirement is commonly
referred to as "pay-to-play."  Payment of these amounts is not an
admission by the taxpayer that it believes it is subject to such
taxes.  During 2009, the Company expensed $48 million related to
monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings
with the city of San Francisco.  The city of San Francisco has
issued additional assessments of tax, penalties and interest for
the time period from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the fourth
quarter of 2011 against the online travel companies, including $22
million against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire.  The additional
assessments, including the prepayment of such assessments, have
been contested by the online travel companies.  The city has
agreed, subject to documentation, that this second assessment need
not be paid and may be placed under a bond.  During 2010, the
Company expensed $3 million related to monies paid in advance of
litigation in occupancy tax proceedings in the city of Santa
Monica; these funds were returned to the Company by the city in
December 2011 in exchange for a letter of credit.  The online
travel companies subsequently prevailed in the litigation and the
letter of credit in favor of the city has been voided.  Hotels.com
is currently under audit by the State of Texas and there is a pay-
to-play requirement to challenge an adverse audit result in court.

The Company does not believe that the amounts it retains as
compensation are subject to the cities' hotel occupancy tax
ordinances.  If the Company prevails in the litigation, for which
a pay-to-play payment was made, the jurisdiction collecting the
payment will be required to repay such amounts, plus interest.
However, any significant pay-to-play payment or litigation loss
could negatively impact the Company's liquidity.

Certain jurisdictions, including the states of New York, North
Carolina and Minnesota, the city of New York, and the District of
Columbia, have enacted legislation seeking to tax online travel
company services as part of sales taxes for hotel occupancy.  The
Company is currently remitting taxes to the city of New York, the
state of New York, the state and local jurisdictions of South
Carolina, the State of Minnesota, the District of Columbia, and
the state and local jurisdictions of Georgia.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.Expedia.com/-- is an online travel
company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools
and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Defends Class Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit
over hotel booking practices, according to the Company's
April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading
("OFT") issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia,
Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG")
have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law
in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations.
The Statement of Objections alleges that Expedia and Booking.com
entered into separate agreements with IHG that restricted each
online travel company's ability to discount the price of IHG hotel
rooms.  The OFT limited its investigation to a small number of
companies, but has stated that the investigation is likely to have
wider implications for the industry within the United Kingdom.

The Statement of Objections does not constitute a finding of
infringement and all parties have the opportunity to respond.  If
the OFT maintains its objections after the companies' responses,
the OFT can issue a final decision.  In such a case a final
decision would be issued at the earliest in 2014.  An appeal of an
adverse OFT decision is to the English courts but may involve a
reference on matters of European Union law to the European Court
of Justice.  The Company says it is unable at this time to predict
the outcome of the OFT proceeding and any appeal.  In addition, a
number of competition authorities in other European countries have
initiated investigations in relation to certain contractual
arrangements between hotels and online travel companies, including
Expedia.  These investigations differ in relation to the parties
involved and the precise nature of the concerns.

Since August 20, 2012, thirty-four putative class action lawsuits,
which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have been
initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging
claims against the online travel companies, including Expedia, and
several major hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance
for online hotel room reservations, including but not limited to
violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer
protection statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust
enrichment.  The parties moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation for consolidation of the cases.  On December
11, 2012, the Panel issued an order consolidating and transferring
the cases to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.Expedia.com/-- is an online travel
company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools
and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


FOUNDERS PAVILION: Faces EEOC GINA Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Becker, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has signaled it will actively
sue employers it suspects of misusing genetic information to
discriminate in the workplace, filing its first class action using
a 5-year-old law known as GINA just days after winning its first
case.

The EEOC said that it had filed a class action against Founders
Pavilion Inc., a rehabilitation and nursing facility in Corning,
New York, using the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
(GINA).

Earlier this month, the commission announced it had obtained a
$50,000 settlement for a worker from fabric distributor Fabricut
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the first GINA case the commission brought
after the law was passed in 2008.

GINA prohibits employers from using genetic information in hiring,
firing and other decisions.  Insurance companies are likewise
prohibited from using such information to deny coverage or charge
higher premiums.

The Founders Pavilion lawsuit is about medical examinations,
specifically a family medical history form that applicants and
workers were asked to complete as a condition of employment.

The EEOC lawsuit further alleges that Founders Pavilion used the
information in the medical questionnaires to discriminate against
applicants, refusing to hire women because they were pregnant or
had perceived disabilities.

"GINA applies whenever an employer conducts a medical exam, and
employers must make sure that they or their agents do not violate
the law," EEOC attorney Elizabeth Grossman said in a release about
the lawsuit.

Ilyse Wolens Schuman, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute
at Littler Mendelson, said the lawsuits were an important reminder
that GINA places restrictions on gathering the information in the
first place.

"It's not just about prohibitions on discrimination based on
genetic information, but very strict restrictions on the
collection of information -- that's really where employers need to
be sure they're in compliance," Mr. Schuman said, noting the law
applies to both medical examinations and wellness programs.

In the Fabricut case, the EEOC charged that the company had
violated both GINA and the Americans with Disabilities Act by
refusing to hire a woman because they believed she had carpel
tunnel syndrome and by asking prohibited questions about her
medical background.

                         Medical Exam

Rhonda Jones, a temporary employee with Fabricut, had applied for
a permanent position and the company had asked her to undergo a
routine medical examination, where she answered questions about
conditions in her family that ranged from diabetes to mental
disorders.  The company's contracted doctor concluded that further
examination was needed to determine whether Jones had carpal
tunnel syndrome.

Though Ms. Jones's personal doctor found she did not have carpal
tunnel and the results were submitted to Fabricut, her employment
offer was rescinded.

"Although GINA has been law since 2009, many employers still do
not understand that requesting family medical history, even
through a contract medical examiner, violates this law," EEOC
attorney Barbara Seely noted after the settlement.

Though the EEOC, as part of a six-prong enforcement initiative,
had made clear that it would focus on genetic discrimination,
Schuman said many employers don't realize how broadly GINA can be
applied in the workplace.

"GINA has perhaps been overlooked, but it certainly comes into
play where employers do not expect," she said.

Neither the companies nor their attorneys could be reached for
comment.

The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Fabricut,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, No. 13-
CV-00248.

For EEOC: Barbara Atkinson Seely, Carl Felix Miller, Gwendolyn
Young Reams, James Lee, P. David Lopez and Patrick JoHugh Holman
of the EEOC.

For Fabricut: Not immediately available.

The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Founders
Pavilion, Inc, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York,
No. 13-cv-06250.

For EEOC: Elizabeth Grossman of the EEOC.

For Founders Pavilion: Not immediately available.


FRED MEYER: Recalls 1,000 Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Easter Chicks
---------------------------------------------------------------

   * Hearing Damage Hazard Cited

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fred Meyer, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Tap Dance Easter
Chicks.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The toy's music can reach decibel levels that exceed ASTM F963
standard, posing a hearing damage hazard.

No injuries have been reported.

The recalled toy is a yellow chick in a furry multi-colored Easter
egg shell that has a shell top with bunny ears and bright orange
feet and nose.  It has a music player and is approximately 9.5
inches tall.  The chick plays music and dances when the left wing
is squeezed.  The sewn-on label reads "DanDee Collector's Choice"
and also has the manufacture date and batch number printed, as
follows:  11/2012 120613670.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://is.gd/gcoMrJ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
select Fred Meyer stores in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska
from February to March 2013 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the toy and return it to
the store where purchased for a full refund.  Fred Meyer may be
reached toll free at (888) 247-4439 from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday and from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Pacific Time on Saturdays and Sundays, press 3 and then 1 to speak
to a representative; or online at http://www.fredmeyer.com/and
then click on Recall Alerts under Services at the bottom of the
page for more information.


LENDER PROCESSING: Awaits Court OK of "St. Clair" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc., is awaiting court approval of
its settlement of a securities class action lawsuit initiated by
St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System, according
to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On December 1, 2010, Lender Processing Services, Inc. was served
with a complaint entitled St. Clair Shores General Employees'
Retirement System v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al.,
which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  The putative class action seeks damages for
alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's disclosures relating to its default operations.  An
amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2011.

LPS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 18, 2011, and
the plaintiff filed a response to the Company's motion on
September 12, 2011.  The complaint was dismissed on March 30,
2012.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second and third
amended complaint on May 8, 2012, and October 5, 2012,
respectively.

On January 28, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement resolving the securities class action
litigation.  The securities class action settlement is subject to
the entry of a final order by the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is a
provider of integrated technology, data and services to the
mortgage lending industry, with a market leading position in
mortgage processing in the United States of America.  LPS was
incorporated in Delaware and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


NEW YORK, NY: Closing Arguments Take Place in Stop-and-Frisk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margot Adler, writing for NPR, reports that closing arguments in
the lawsuit challenging New York City's stop-and-frisk policy was
set to begin on May 20 in federal court.  The plaintiffs in the
class action trial claim police officers were pressured to stop,
question and frisk hundreds of thousands of people each year --
even establishing quotas.

Protesters participate in a rally near the federal courthouse
March 18 in New York.  Lawyers for four men who say they were
illegally stopped said many of the 5 million people stopped,
questioned and sometimes frisked by police in the past decade were
wrongly targeted because of their race.

Closing arguments were set to take place May 20 in the federal
class action trial involving New York City's stop-and-frisk
policy.  The trial has been going on for two months in Manhattan.

Plaintiffs in Floyd v. City of New York claim the New York Police
Department, its supervisors and its union pressured police
officers to stop, question and frisk hundreds of thousands of
people each year, even establishing quotas.  They argue that 88
percent of the stops involved blacks and Hispanics, mostly men,
and were in fact a form of racial profiling.

The police and the city argued that these policies were goals, not
quotas, and have made New York the safest big city in America.

"I can't imagine any rational person saying that the techniques
are not working and that we should stop them," says Mayor Michael
Bloomberg.

The city also argued that these stops took place in high crime
areas where the crime was often black on black or Hispanic on
Hispanic.  As NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told public radio
station WNYC: "Ninety-six percent of the shooting victims in New
York City are black or Hispanic.  Crime is down in this city in
the last two decades 80 percent."

Joseph Esposito, who was NYPD's chief until this year, testified
at the trial that he had heard no complaints about racial
profiling.

That brought Judge Shira Scheindlin up short: You never heard that
from any community groups? she asked.

But plaintiffs like Nicholas Pert and David Ourlicht told NPR a
different story.

"I remember squad cars pulling up; they just pulled up
aggressively, and the cops came out with their guns drawn,"
Mr. Pert says.

"Threw me against the wall," Mr. Ourlicht says.  "Took everything
out of my pockets, threw it on the floor, dumped my bag on the
floor, my books and everything."

"It left me embarrassed, humiliated and upset," Mr. Pert adds.

Other testimony by whistle-blowing cops provided recordings at the
trial where supervisors told officers to push up the number of
stops.

"The police are told to get numbers," says Jonathan Moore, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs.  "This is not what stop-and-frisk
should be.  Stop-and-frisk is a legitimate tool for law
enforcement to use.  It should not be the way you measure an
officer's future in the New York City Police Department."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that very few of the stops led
to arrests or even the discovery of illegal guns.  And even though
the number of stops went down significantly in 2012, there were
almost 5 million stops in 10 years.

Plaintiffs are asking Judge Scheindlin to put the NYPD's stop-and-
frisk policies under judicial oversight, something the city and
the NYPD definitely oppose.

The trial is really about two different questions.  Police have
the authority to stop someone, but at what point does that stop
and that search violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?
Secondly, is the pattern of stop-and-frisk a form of racial
profiling?

Ian Weinstein, a law professor at Fordham University, says stop-
and-frisk can only be used if there is a suspicion of a crime.  If
the judge finds there is a pattern of exceeding lawful authority,
"particularly to frisk someone for weapons, and to search -- in
other words, go in pockets, ask them to empty a bag -- that is a
clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  That would justify an
oversight commission, different sorts of remedies that the
plaintiffs have proposed, without addressing the question of
racial discrimination and racial profiling."

Proving racial profiling is much harder, Mr. Weinstein says.  "You
have to show intent, and that can be difficult to prove."

Standards of proof have become more demanding, he says, and the
culture of race claims has shifted over 20 years.

"Courts are less receptive, the society is less receptive, and we
see this in the Supreme Court's movement," Mr. Weinstein says.

Closing arguments were expected to take all of May 20, and the
judge's ruling is not expected for several months.


PENGUIN GROUP: Settles Suit Over Alleged E-Book Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that last of the five publishers sued for conspiring with Apple
Inc. to fix the prices of electronic books has agreed to pay $75
million to settle cases brought by consumers and attorneys general
in 33 states.

Penguin Group (USA) Inc., based in New York, reached the
settlement on May 22 to resolve allegations it artificially raised
the prices of e-books in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

The agreement, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge
Denise Cote in New York, would resolve a consolidated class action
brought by consumers in 2011.  Last year, the plaintiffs, along
with the 33 attorneys general and the U.S. Justice Department,
reached a $69 million settlement with three other publishers:
Hachette Book Group (USA), HarperCollins Publishers LLC and Simon
& Schuster Inc.

All but one of the 17 remaining state attorneys general signed
onto the deal.  On February 8, consumers obtained a $20 million
deal with Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC, which does business as
Macmillan.  That deal also resolved claims by the 33 attorneys
general and the Justice Department.

Under those agreements, the publishers are not permitted to
continue similar deals with Apple and other retailers for two
years.

"This has been a very unique case against the publishers and
Apple," said Jeff Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- a partner at
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in San Francisco.  "It's been
extraordinarily hotly contested and we are very, very happy about
the monetary relief thus far.  It's a product of unprecedented
coordination between federal, state and private antitrust
lawyers."

A request for comment was not returned by Penguin Group (USA), the
U.S. subsidiary of The Penguin Group, itself a division of Pearson
PLC, which is based in London.  Penguin's attorney, Daniel McInnis
-- dmcinnis@akingump.com -- a partner in the Washington office of
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, did not return a call for
comment.

On December 18, the Justice Department settled with Penguin.

Judge Cote has granted final approval to the first settlement with
the three publishers and on May 17 issued final judgment as to
Penguin's deal with the Justice Department.

A bench trial in the litigation brought by the 33 attorneys
general and the Department of Justice against Apple, the only
remaining defendant in the litigation was scheduled for June 3.


SEASTREAK WALL STREET: Faces 45 Passenger Damages Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the owner
of SeaStreak Wall Street, a commuter ferry that crashed in
Manhattan's financial district on Jan. 9, faces at least 45
passenger claims for damages, according to a court filing.

The claims are pending in federal court in Newark, New Jersey,
where SeaStreak sued under admiralty law on Jan. 16 and asked a
judge to limit the company's liability to $7.6 million. U.S.
District Judge William Martini gave the passengers until May 16 to
make claims.

"There are presently more than 45 claims filed in the case, with a
total claimed amount in excess of $75 million," SeaStreak LLC's
lawyers wrote in a letter filed on May 16.  "SeaStreak has settled
more than 35 personal injury and property loss/damage claims that
were submitted directly to SeaStreak."

The ferry had 326 people aboard when it left Atlantic Highlands,
New Jersey, at 8 a.m. on Jan. 9 and slammed into a docking barge
at 8:43 a.m., authorities said at the time.  The National
Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash.

SeaStreak has reached settlements ranging from free monthly
tickets to $265,000, according to the filing on May 16.  The
company also has begun repairing the docking barge, which is
estimated to cost $350,000.

SeaStreak attorney Jeremy J.O. Harwood of Blank Rome LLP didn't
immediately return a call seeking comment.

One attorney for claimants, Edward Petkevis, said they will argue
that Martini should defeat SeaStreak's attempt to limit liability
in the case.

                      'Devastating Effect'

"If SeaStreak is successful in their limitation complaint, it
would have a devastating effect upon the claims of the injured
passengers," Mr. Petkevis said.  "I am as confident as I can be
that limitation will be defeated and the claimants will be able to
pursue the full value of their claims."

SeaStreak operates five vessels between central New Jersey and
Manhattan, and two between New Bedford and Martha's Vineyard in
Massachusetts, according to the company's website.

SeaStreak is a sister company of Moran Towing Co., the Interlake
Steamship Co. and Mormac Marine Group Inc., according to the
website.  SeaStreak and its sister companies are owned by the
Barker and Tregurtha families.  James R. Barker acts as chairman
of SeaStreak and Paul R. Tregurtha is chairman and chief executive
officer of Moran Towing, according to the website.

The case is In re SeaStreak LLC, 13-cv-00315, U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey (Newark).


SOULCYCLE: Wage Class Action May Hurt Fitness Industry
------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bishop and Barry Klein, writing for Athletic Business, reports
that the recently filed class-action lawsuit against the indoor
cycling chain SoulCycle for allegedly violating California and New
York wage laws could have a huge impact on the health and fitness
industry.  "We're fascinated by it and are watching to see how it
progresses," Messrs. Bishop and Klein said.

The complaint, filed by a former SoulCycle instructor, claims that
SoulCycle instructors -- who are paid only for the classes they
teach -- are "required to work above and beyond the time
instructing a class."  Their duties include training, preparation,
communication with customers, meetings, special-event classes and
assisting with marketing.

"We are particularly intrigued because the plaintiff worked at the
company for four years.  He, after all, has nothing to lose and
everything to win.  If SoulCycle is forced to provide back pay for
all of those additional hours, he could be in for quite a
windfall," Messrs. Bishop and Klein said.

On the other hand, current employees of SoulCycle -- and every
fitness business in America -- could take a hit if he wins.  Not
that we think SoulCycle is 100 percent correct in how they pay
their instructors (if what the suit alleges is true).  For
example, a strong argument could be made that special-event
classes and marketing activities should be compensated hours.  But
training, preparation and communicating with customers are part of
being an instructor.  In fact, doing those things well is, in a
sense, more vital to being a top-flight instructor than the act of
teaching the class! If someone thinks they should be compensated
for those activities, then they are likely in the wrong business.

So what happens if SoulCycle loses? The impact would be felt at
every club where group fitness instructors and personal trainers
are employees rather than contractors.  The whole employee vs.
contractor thing is already a hot issue between the IRS and health
clubs, and it would only get worse as more clubs protected
themselves by converting employees into contractors.  Instructors
and trainers would have to show up, teach and leave.  There would
be no worries about additional duties, because contractors are in
business for themselves.

The other option for club owners would be to accommodate this
notion of paying for everything.  Everyone would have a low hourly
wage and get paid, say, an extra half-hour to prep and an extra
half-hour to schmooze with members.  But they'd take home exactly
the same amount of money, if not less.  Superstar instructors
wouldn't like it, nor would personal trainers who get paid on a
percentage of the revenue they generate.

Messrs. Bishop and Klein said "We don't know what SoulCycle pays,
but our guess is that they pay in line or better than their
competitors.  Their facilities are high-end and exclusive.  Their
classes and their instructors are highly regarded.  We imagine
that most of their instructors feel like fitness rock stars.  This
lawsuit could force them to be treated like everybody else.  That
wouldn't be good for SoulCycle's instructors.  And it wouldn't be
good for our industry."


SPI ELECTRICITY: Data on Power Lines Limited, Ex-Engineer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports that a former senior engineer at the electricity
company blamed for sparking the deadly Kilmore East Black Saturday
bushfire says the company had a "somewhat limited" understanding
of the condition of its power lines and poles.

Anthony Walley told a class action over the fatal blaze the
database detailing the management of SPI Electricity's assets was
not what he would've expected when he was employed as a senior
lines engineer in 2008.

"The quality of the data at SPI Electricity was not what I had the
expectation it would be," he told the Victorian Supreme Court.

He described the breadth of the company's asset management
database as "somewhat limited".

He also said maintenance records for SPI Electricity assets for
the years prior to 1999 had been lost.

Victorian woman Carol Matthews is leading a class action of more
than 10,000 people suing SPI Electricity, claiming it was
negligent in failing to maintain power lines that sparked the
Kilmore East blaze.

The February 2009 Kilmore East blaze killed 119 people and
destroyed 1200 homes.

The group is also taking action against the CFA, Victoria Police
and the Department of Sustainability and Environment over their
failure to warn communities.

All defendants deny the allegations and are fighting the claims.

Senior associate lawyer for the plaintiffs in the class action,
Rory Walsh, told reporters outside court SPI Electricity simply
did not know what condition its assets were in.

Mr. Walley no longer works for SPI Electricity.

The hearing continues.


TEAVANA CORP: Recalls 469,850 Teavana Glass Tea Tumblers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in conjunction with
Health Canada and in cooperation with importer, Teavana
Corporation, of Atlanta, Georgia; and manufacturers, Shaanxi
Cathay Import and Export Corporation, Anhui Fuguang Industrial
Co., Ltd., and Hong Tai Yang Glass Product Co., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 445,000 Teavana Glass Tea
Tumblers in the United States of America and 24,850 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The glass tea tumblers can break or shatter unexpectedly, posing
laceration and burn hazards.

Teavana has received approximately 302 reports of the glass
breaking or shattering, including six reports of lacerations and
burns when the tumblers broke during use.  Injuries include cut
fingers and legs and burned toes.

The glass tea tumblers are double-walled beverage glasses.  Most
models have removable stainless steel tea infuser baskets,
removable lids, and ornamental etchings on the inner wall.  The
tumblers were packaged in color-coordinated cylindrical packages
with the SKU number and UPC code found on a sticker on the bottom
of the package.  Some of the models with a lid were sold as part
of a tea gift set.  Only one model was sold without a lid or tea
infuser basket and was sold in a set of four glasses.  The
products come in the following model names, SKU/product codes and
UPC codes:

  MODEL NAME                        SKU/PRODUCT CODE   UPC CODE
  ----------                        ----------------   --------
  Akira Travel RED 14 oz.           30921 600 014      10005650
  Clouds Travel CPR 14 oz.          31253 219 014      10006051
  Flourish Iced Tea Glasses 12 oz.
  (sold as set, 4 no-lid glasses)   30123 000 012      10005006
  Harmony Glass Double Wall 11 oz.  TI-DBL TBUL-350    10004174
  Izmir Travel GRN 14 oz.           30922 300 014      10005651
  Lotus Travel PUR 14 oz.           31254 500 014      10006052
  Rhapsody Glass Double Wall 16 oz. TI-DBL TBUL-500    10004248
  Six Dragons Double Wall 11 oz.    10004568 000 011   10004568
  Six Dragons Double Wall 16 oz.    10004568 000 016   10004569
  Symphony Double Wall 8 oz.        ET-TEATUMB         10003652
  Tamira Travel BLU 14 oz.          30920 400 014      10005649

  TEA SETS:

  Imperial Blooming Collection      30331 000 000      10004033
  Tea Sets with 2 Harmony 11 oz.
  Tumblers

  Imperial Blooming Collection      ET BLOOMGIFT       10003651
  Tea Sets with 2 Symphony 8 oz.
  Tumblers

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Teavana stores and online at Teavana.com from
August 2007 through May 2013 for about $15 to $33 for the
individual tumblers, for about $40 for the Flourish Iced Tea
Glasses Sets, and for about $80 to $100 for the Imperial Blooming
Collection Tea Sets.

Consumers should immediately stop using the glass tea tumblers and
return them to a Teavana store location (except for three stores;
Columbia Mall, Columbia, Maryland; Dallas Fort Worth Airport,
Arlington, Texas; or Galleria Mall, Fort Lauderdale, Florida) for
a free replacement metallic tea tumbler and a complimentary 2 oz.
package of Opus Rouge Rooibos Tea.  Consumers returning tumblers
or glasses sold as part of sets will receive a replacement tumbler
and package of tea for each tumbler or glass in that set.
Consumers may also mail the tumblers or glasses to Teavana by
calling the company and requesting a pre-paid mailer that will be
sent at no cost to the consumer for returning the recalled
tumblers or glasses.  A free replacement metallic tumbler plus the
complimentary tea will be sent at no charge upon receipt of the
returned tumblers or glasses.  Teavana may be reached toll-free at
(877) 261-1509 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday (or other times to leave a message), or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.Teavana.com/,and click on "Glass
Tumbler Recall" for more information.




THE COPA: Mum on Progress of Salmonella Outbreak Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times reports that the restaurant at the center of
the territory's largest ever salmonella outbreak has remained
tight lipped on the progress of an investigation, much to the
chagrin of affected patrons.

Diners affected as part of Canberra's largest salmonella outbreak
have all been discharged from hospital, more than one week after
being exposed to bad mayonnaise.

Some affected diners are considering joining a class action law
suit after 140 people fell ill and 15 were hospitalized after
eating bad mayonnaise at The Copa restaurant in Dickson.

ACT Health intends to monitor the restaurant for coming months,
Chief Health Officer Paul Kelly said, adding that the restaurant
had reopened recently after its voluntary closure last week.

"We identified some issues that they needed to address and they
addressed them," he said.

"We're continuing to monitor the situation over the next few weeks
or even months to make sure that's happening."

Speaking on ABC Radio, Dr. Kelly said there was a possibility that
some patients would suffer long term effects from the outbreak.

"The more [people] that you have [affected], the more likely that
the relatively rare longer term effects can occur in a small
minority of people," he said.

"As far as I'm aware, the people affected this time didn't show
those signs."

Dozens of people have responded to statements by The Copa on
social media, criticizing the response from restaurant owners
after Saturday's reopening and demanding a public apology.

The establishment is yet to release a further statement after
posting on their Facebook page on May 18.


TNUVA CENTRAL: Faces Class Action Over Animal Cruelty
-----------------------------------------------------
Yori Yanover, writing for The Jewish Press, reports that Jerusalem
District Court was set to hear arguments on May 20 over the
validity of a consumer class action suit against Tnuva Central
Cooperative for the Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Israel
Ltd., based on the claim that Tnuva misled consumers regarding the
humane treatment of animals in its Beit She'an beef slaughterhouse
and meat-packing plant, where its Adom Adom ("very red") top
quality brand is produced.

After a December 6, 2012 expose on Israeli TV consumer advocacy
program "Colbotech" revealed some shocking details of the way
animals are being treated in the Beit She'an slaughterhouse, a
group of consumers, headed by a Haredi woman named Ruth Kolian, is
looking to sue Tnuva for consumer anguish.

The issue at hand is whether the fact that the animals had
undergone inhumane treatment in itself justifies a claim for
monetary compensation for the plaintiffs, and whether it is
sufficiently broad to justify a class action suit.

Tnuva, for its part, will be arguing that the very fact that the
plaintiffs are essentially organized and represented by an
organization called Anonymous for Animal Rights, which exposed the
terrible violations at the Beit She'an plant in an effort to get
it to close down, disqualifies them from adopting the stance of a
cheated consumer.

Here are just some of the appalling conditions the Colbotech show
exposed, the list is very long:

Calves were beaten and shocked repeatedly to urge them to march to
slaughter.

Calves who had difficulty walking were shocked dozens of times in
a row, in different parts of the body including the head and
testicles.  Those who still did not manage to walk were dragged on
the floor by forklifts (the law in such cases says they should be
killed on the spot).

Lambs were dragged on the ground by workers holding them by one
leg (one employee was documented hauling two lambs at the same
time).

Lambs were beaten repeatedly on their heads and bodies with a
pipe, in order to encourage them to stand or walk, sometimes
without any apparent reason.

Workers were documented stepping on lambs, lying down on them or
riding them, throwing them in the air and catching them by the
lambs' mouths.

Calves were kept hanging upside down before slaughter for extended
periods of time.  An employee told an undercover investigator:
"Today a live calf released itself, because of a worker's blunder.
It freed itself [from a conveyer belt to which it was attached
hanging upside down by one leg] after it had already been
butchered, it came to us still alive, it started to riot, nearly
killed us.  We fled.  Finally they overcame it, with electric
shockers.  They beat it up until it calmed down."

In many cases this Tnuva slaughterhouse's meat was disqualified as
traif because of bone fractures and other issues.  The meat was
marketed non-Jewish consumers.

It is interesting to note that while the plaintiffs never make the
claim that it's the halachic shechitah which is to blame for the
terrible images the TV audience had viewed last winter -- they
blame Tnuva's mismanagement -- it is the corporation which, in
effect, is making the anti shechitah case, suggesting it is
impossible to slaughter an animal humanely.

The defense also provided a friend of the court note from Rabbi
Shlomo Yosef Machpud, head of the Badatz kashrut system, who
argues in very strong language against unnecessary cruelty to
animals, stating that such action would entail the removal of the
kosher certification.

Anonymous for Animal Rights has recruited potential plaintiffs for
the district court case by defining them as "any person who has
purchased . . . over the seven year period prior to the filing of
this appeal, meat products produced by the brand 'Adom Adom,' and
who, because of watching the investigation on Colbotech . . . has
suffered emotional anguish and damage to their private autonomy."

The suit is for 200 million Shekel (roughly $55 million).

The defense will argue that the law in Israel does not award
damages to a person who suffered anguish from watching another
person's suffering (parents and their children, for example). How
much less entitled are the plaintiffs, who were only affected by
watching animals suffer.

But, of course, as Yossi Wolfson, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
noted, the human-suffering is in relation to a third person, while
here the consumer experienced the anguish directly.

The May 20 ruling by Judge Tamar Rapaport, is expected to be only
over the validity of the class action suit, and not a deliberation
of the suit itself.

Anonymous for Animal Rights also has a case pending before the
Supreme Court, requesting that the Tnuva slaughterhouse be shut
down, first temporarily and then permanently.

The Jewish Press contacted the Friedman legal firm representing
the defendant, Tnuva, but they were not available for comment.


UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Class Action Over Flawed HS2 Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that campaigners opposed to the high-speed rail
line through the Midlands are seeking legal advice on taking the
government to court en masse.

The action comes as a consultation into the compensation scheme
ends for the line that would link the Midlands with London and the
North of England.

HS2 Ltd.'s Exceptional Hardship Scheme offers homeowners the
chance to sell their property to HS2.

Opponents say a class action lawsuit could prove the scheme is
flawed.

Rolf Pearce, from the campaign group Staffs Against HS2, said: "We
are looking at the moment at getting some serious barristers
together to look at the possibility of doing an American-style
class action with a large number of people suing the government as
a group.

"It's never been done before in the UK but we've got some very
determined people up and down the line who want a full and fair
deal for those affected inside and outside HS2's compensation
zone."

The deadline later is for comments about the compensation scheme
being extended in phase two, for properties affected by the line
from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds.

Richard Burrage, who sold his house in Middleton, near Tamworth,
in the first phase, said: "You're not allowed to refuse an offer
for your house that is within 15% of the asking price.

"If you had a house that's GBP200,000 in a market that's steady
would you accept a cheque for GBP170,000?"

Jim Prenold, who owns a farm on the proposed route in Marston,
north of Stafford, said: "They can compensate for bricks and
mortar but not for your life's work.  How can I start again at 70?

"Everything's in limbo now for 20 years and the places are already
devalued by about 40% . . . so how can they possibly say we're
going to get full compensation?"

Liz Hurst, from HS2 Ltd, said so far 113 households had been
successful out of 455 applications.

"We think with 113 successful applicants it shows the scheme is
working," she added.

Jerry Blackett, chief executive of the Birmingham Chamber of
Commerce Group, said he believed HS2 was essential for growth.

He said: "When you put in new infrastructure, business happens,
more business open up, more jobs are created, a whole regeneration
experience happens.

"We've done our own assessment of what it's worth [for the
Midlands] and we think it's worth 22,000 jobs and GBP1.5 billion
when you add in the real benefits not just the time-saved
benefits."


VISA INC: Retailers File Suit Over Interchange Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that from the
moment it was announced last July, critics have panned the $7.25
billion deal that MasterCard, Visa, and a group of major card-
issuing banks struck to resolve claims that they fixed fees on
credit and debit card transactions.  Merchant trade groups
complained that the class action settlement would do nothing to
prevent Visa and MasterCard from continuing to raise so-called
interchange fees (a.k.a swipe fees).  Retail giants like Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. and Target Corporation announced their opposition as
well, citing terms that would bar class members from pursuing
future litigation against the credit card companies.

On May 23 Target, Macy's Inc., and more than a dozen other
retailers took their opposition a step further with a lawsuit of
their own against Visa and MasterCard.  The complaint, filed by
lawyers at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease and Clarick Gueron
Reisbaum in Manhattan federal court, claims the plaintiffs have
collectively paid more than $1 billion in interchange fees for
Visa and MasterCard transactions in the past fiscal year.

Conspicuously absent from the May 23 complaint is Constantine
Cannon, which took the lead in representing objectors to the
settlement.  Constantine Cannon previously represented a
nationwide class of merchants in a separate antitrust case against
Visa and MasterCard over the companies' "signature" cards.  That
case settled for a then-record breaking $3.4 billion in 2003.

Wal-Mart, which was one of the lead plaintiffs in the earlier
case, was also a no-show in the May 23 complaint.  The Litigation
Daily reached out to Constantine Cannon's Jeffrey Shinder to ask
if he'd be reprising his role as Wal-Mart's counsel in a new opt-
out suit, but we didn't immediately hear back.

A Vorys Sater spokesman declined to comment on the retailers'
suit.  In the complaint, partner Michael Canter wrote that Visa
and MasterCard "exploited their market power" and violated
antitrust law by milking retailers for unfair swipe fees on behalf
of card-issuing banks.  "Over the past decade, judicial efforts to
curb the exercise of market power by the Visa and MasterCard
combinations have been ineffective," the complaint asserts.

U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn preliminarily
approved the $7.25 billion swipe fee settlement in November, but
retailers large and small have been piling on with formal
objections ahead of a final hearing on the deal.  Visa and
MasterCard can terminate the settlement if merchants responsible
for 25 percent of the volume of transactions back out.

Co-lead class counsel K. Craig Wildfang -- kcwildfang@rkmc.com --
of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi told The Litigation Daily on May
23 that the settlement is still on track for approval.  "It
doesn't appear to us that the companies listed on the complaint
would come anywhere close to 25 percent of the class," Mr.
Wildfang said.

The credit card companies are represented by Arnold & Porter (for
Visa) and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Willkie
Farr & Gallagher (for MasterCard).  Listing the legal teams for
all the bank defendants might crash The American Lawyer's servers,
but we promise it's a suitably intimidating group.


WAL-MART: Ordered to Release Documents in Bribery Case
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider, reports
that the Delaware Court of Chancery has ordered Wal-Mart to
release internal documents detailing its directors' knowledge of
allegations that the company's Mexican affiliate, Walmex, bribed
government officials in order to obtain permits to build stores in
specific locations.

Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr. issued the bench ruling on May 22 in
Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW v. Wal-Mart
Stores.  Chancellor Strine's decision was first reported by
Bloomberg News.

Chancellor Strine ordered the retail giant to provide the
documents to plaintiffs' counsel in a derivative suit filed
against the company.  A group of lawsuits, which were consolidated
last year in Indiana, allege Wal-Mart's board breached its
fiduciary duties by failing to adequately investigate the bribery
charges.

Chancellor Strine said that Wal-Mart "can't sanitize its response"
to the shareholders' document requests, according to the Bloomberg
News report.

Chancellor Strine's decision was in response to a books-and-
records request made by the plaintiffs under Section 220 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law, which enables plaintiffs in a
derivative suit to request specific documents.  The shareholders
were seeking access to e-mails and other information, according to
court documents.

Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer is representing the plaintiffs.
He did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Potter Anderson & Corroon is serving as Delaware counsel for the
Bentonville, Ark., retail giant and its board members.  Attorneys
at the firm also did not return calls seeking comment.

Multiple Wal-Mart shareholders, including the Indiana Electrical
Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, the California State Teachers'
Retirement System and the New York City Employees' Retirement
System, as well as several individual investors, filed lawsuits
last year in response to allegations that the company's Mexican
executives had bribed officials to obtain construction permits
throughout the country.  Chancellor Strine consolidated the
complaints, which alleged the same facts, in September 2012.

The lawsuits were initiated after an April 21, 2012, news report
in The New York Times claiming that a senior Wal-Mart official
received a September 2005 e-mail from a Walmex executive
describing bribes paid to obtain construction permits in the
country.

According to The Times, Wal-Mart investigated the claims and found
payments totaling more than $24 million to Mexican officials.
However, the company's top executives promptly ended the
investigation without notifying officials in either Mexico or the
United States.  The Times also reported that Wal-Mart did notify
officials after the newspaper informed the company of its news
report's content.

"Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to require
Wal-Mart to implement internal controls in compliance with the
[U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act] for the FCPA's underlying
directives regarding books, records and internal accounting, which
are designed to ferret out and ultimately prevent just the type of
illegal payments that were made at Wal-Mart," wrote James P.
McEvilly III of Faruqi & Faruqi, a Wilmington firm, on behalf of
shareholder Henrietta Klein, in Klein v. Walton.

"These payments were facilitated by defendants' knowing and/or
reckless failure to establish a system of internal controls at
Wal-Mart, in direct violation of the books, records and internal
accounting requirements of the FCPA," Mr. McEvilly continued.

Wal-Mart declined to comment on Chancellor Strine's decision,
saying it does not comment on lawsuits.  At the time the
complaints were filed, the retailer had promised the bribery
allegations were "being investigated thoroughly."


WOLFGANG PUCK: Faces Class Action for Skimming Employees' Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that one of the
country's highest earning chefs is nickel and diming his staff,
according to a class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme
Court on May 19.

A Wolfgang Puck catering company was allegedly sticking venues
like Irving Plaza and the Gramercy Theater with a 22 percent
service charge and then denying its bartenders and servers tips,
the suit states.

The company has a contract with events giant Live Nation to
provide drinks and snacks like hot pretzels for shows by artists
like Green Day and Lana Del Ray and private functions for Google
and Rolling Stone magazine.

The Austrian-born celebrity chef is worth $20 million, according
to Forbes.  His food empire is second only to Rachel Ray and
Gordon Ramsey.

Orin Kurtz is representing named plaintiffs Kristin Noriega and
Oliver Gummert in the lawsuit.  He said all Wolfgang Puck Catering
and Events employees who worked private functions going back to
2008 are owed hundreds of thousands in unpaid gratuity.

"After years of enduring these violations, the plaintiffs look
forward to their day in court," said Mr. Kurtz, of the Fifth
Avenue firm Gardy & Notis.

Ms. Noriega, a struggling actress and waitress, and Mr. Gummert, a
bartender, were paid between $10 and $18 an hour and were not
compensated for up to 30 hours of overtime a week, the court
papers allege.  Both staffers left the job in 2012 after working
for Puck for two to three years.

"Any charge for 'service' or 'food service,' is a charge purported
to be a gratuity and therefore must be paid over to service
employees," the legal papers state.  Sticking clients with a
"service charge" and failing to pass along the fee to servers
violates state and federal law.

When Ms. Noriega asked a Live Nation promoter in December 2011
about the unpaid tips, the promoter suggested that Puck charge
more money as competitors did so that bartenders were fairly
compensated.  Ms. Noriega says she was prompted yelled at by a
supervisor for the inquiry.

She was "told that if she inquired any further about Defendants'
violations of the labor laws she would be fired."

The practice was even more egregious, the suit says, because a
Puck sister company, Restaurant Associates, was embroiled in a
federal class action suit in 2011 for keeping tips from employees
who worked the US Open tennis championships in Queens.

Reps for Puck did not immediately return messages seeking comment.


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Defends "Marcano" Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc., is defending a securities class action
lawsuit commenced by Ivan Marcano in California, according to the
Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On March 13, 2012, an alleged purchaser of the Company's publicly
traded common stock, Ivan Marcano, filed a securities class action
in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled
Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No. RG12621290.  The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements or
omitted to state facts necessary to make the disclosures not
misleading in its Form S-1, and the amendments thereto, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.  The claims
are asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  On March 15, 2012, April 3, 2012, and May 24, 2012, three
additional and substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the
same court, some adding the Company's underwriters as defendants.
All four cases were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was
deemed operative.  On August 24, 2012, the Company filed a
demurrer to the consolidated complaint.  Subsequently, the
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Company's outside directors and
its underwriters from the litigation without prejudice.  On
November 9, 2012, the court sustained the Company's demurrer with
leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14,
2013, again asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The second amended complaint seeks
compensatory damages and equitable relief on behalf of the class
for an amount to be proven at trial.  The Company has filed its
response and demurrer to the second amended complaint.  The
hearing on the Company's demurrer was scheduled for May 2, 2013.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit and intends
to vigorously defend it. The Company believes there is
insufficient evidence to indicate whether there is a reasonable
possibility that a loss has been incurred as of March 31, 2013,
nor can it estimate the range of potential loss.

ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc. -- http://www.coolsculpting.com/-- is a
medical technology company focused on developing and
commercializing products utilizing its proprietary controlled
cooling technology platform.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


* US Supreme Court Issues Series of Pro-Business Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric London, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that a
series of pro-business decisions announced by the US Supreme Court
in recent weeks marks a continuation of the judicial branch's
steady movement to the right.  The rulings further enshrine the
power of corporate behemoths to exploit workers, defraud
consumers, and damage the environment with legal impunity.  The
decisions also serve as an indictment of the right-wing character
of the court's liberal wing.

The court in Bowman v. Monsanto forced Vernon Bowman, a 75 year-
old small farmer, to pay over $84,000 in damages to the Monsanto
Company, the agribusiness giant with assets totaling $19.8
billion.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Obama appointee Elena Kagan,
the court expanded the scope of Monsanto's patent on genetically
modified Roundup Ready soybeans, which account for 90 percent of
soybeans planted in the US.  The court ruled that farmers who
purchase Roundup Ready seeds, plant them, and harvest them for use
in future crop seasons are liable for having violated Monsanto's
product patent and can be sued even if their patent agreement had
been exhausted.

The ruling shows more than the pro-corporate unanimity of the
members of the court.  It also reveals the irrationality of the
for-profit system of production.  Despite a global crisis of food
scarcity which has left hundreds of millions malnourished and
starving, to protect a multi-billion-dollar corporation's profit
margin the Supreme Court has ruled illegal a millennia-old farming
practice of using seed yield to produce the next season's crop.

In April, the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell also
ruled unanimously that Nigerian citizens could not bring suit in
the US against Royal Dutch Shell for the company's role in
killing, torturing, and terrorizing peaceful activists protesting
against Shell's oil development plans in the Ogonia Niger River
Delta.  In its ruling, the court erased decades of jurisprudence
and employed the pseudo-legal argument that Shell was immune to
suits brought against it in the US under the Alien Tort Statute
because the mega-corporation's ties with the US were not
sufficient enough for the ATS to apply.

The court also decided in Comcast v. Behrend last month that 2
million NBC/Comcast subscribers in Pennsylvania were not eligible
to sue the telecommunications monopoly for $875 million in damages
for violation of federal anti-trust law.  On a hollow
technicality, the court ruled that the 2 million co-plaintiffs to
the action would be forced to sue individually because they could
not show that they had enough in common with one another to win
class certification.  Because of the cost of bringing suit
individually, almost none of those seeking damages will be able to
afford to bring suit and the company will see little or no loss.

A similar decision was reached in the 2011 case Pliva Inc. v.
Mensing, in which the court ruled that individuals harmed by
unsafe generic drugs cannot sue manufacturers for failure to issue
health-related warnings.

The Behrend decision is the latest in a string of cases where the
court has restricted class action suits in order to protect
corporate parties from paying damages to those they have injured.
Class action lawsuits give large groups of injured individuals the
right to sue as a single party without each person being required
to pay for expensive legal representation.

However, the Supreme Court has made it extremely difficult for
groups of injured persons to win class action status.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, for example, the court in 2011 invented a
similar technicality in order to prevent over 1.6 million female
Wal-Mart employees from suing the company for well-documented
discriminatory hiring, payment, and promotion policies.  That same
year, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court gave
corporations the right to force customers to sign arbitration
agreements that prevent them from bringing class action suits at
any time in the future.

The rightward trend is in no way limited to class actions, the
Alien Tort Statute, or corporate patents.  In fact, these issues
are relevant insofar as they relate to a general shift to the
right-one that is gaining recognition amongst the bourgeois legal
community.

A study published last month in the University of Minnesota Law
Review found the present Supreme Court is the most pro-corporate
court in nearly 70 years, and this by a significant margin.  The
study, which analyzed 2,000 Supreme Court decisions since 1946,
ranked all Supreme Court justices from that period and found that
five current justices rank in the top ten most business-friendly
justices of the post-war period.  Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito are the first and second most pro-corporate
justices during the period covered by the study, respectively.

Also telling is a list published recently on SCOTUSBlog noting
that the most active filer of amicus curiae, or "friend of the
court," briefs, is the US Chamber of Commerce.  The Supreme Court
agreed to hear a remarkable 32 percent of the cases for which the
Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief from 2009 to 2012. Not a
single liberal organization appeared on the list of the 16 most
active amicus curiae filers.

The New York Times noted the recent studies in an article titled
"Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court."  Erwin
Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law
school, was quoted in the Times article as saying, "The Roberts
court is the most pro-business court since the mid 1930s."

It is significant that these comparisons are being drawn, but
there are important distinctions between the Roberts court and the
Taft and Hughes courts of the 1920s and 1930s.

In that earlier period of ascendant American industrialism, and
when the lessons of 1917 were fresh in the memories of the ruling
class, a segment of the liberal elite responded to the growing
militancy of the working class by adopting a reform agenda.

The arch-reaction, represented by then-chief justice and former
president William Taft, hoped to stamp out "the leviathan, the
People" in order to "prevent the Bolsheviki from getting control."
Those like him, including Justice Edward Sanford, feared that "a
single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smouldering for
a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration."

But at that time and at that stage of the development of American
capitalism, the prominent liberal members of the court like Oliver
Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis believed that private property
could best be protected by placing limits on the reaction.

When Brandeis and Holmes dissented in the 1927 case Whitney v.
California, where the Taft court upheld California's criminal
syndicalism statute that made the Communist Party illegal,
Brandeis wrote: "Only an emergency can justify repression.  Those
who won our independence by revolution were not cowards . . . they
did not fear political change.  They did not exalt order at the
cost of liberty . . ."

Today, no such words will be found in the rare dissents from the
liberals appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to the Supreme
Court.  Absent from the liberals of the Supreme Court is any
principled opposition to the unprecedented abrogation of
democratic rights being carried out under the auspices of the
"global war on terror."

The liberals are silent on the illegal assassination programs, the
torture of prisoners, the National Defense Authorization Act, and
the expansion of the national security apparatus.  Today, the
liberals are leading the attack on the social rights and living
conditions of the working class.  Hand in hand with the
conservatives, they are drawing the court rightward at a pace
unmet since before the Second World War.



                             *********

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  * * *