CAR_Public/130610.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 113

                             Headlines



AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Emission Suit Dismissal Pending
AMERIFREIGHT SYSTEMS: Faces Labor Class Action in Cook County
APPLE: Faces Class Action Over Voiding Warranties
ATP OIL: Officers Face Suit Over False & Misleading Statements
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend Suit Over Short-Term Loans

CASH AMERICA: Faces Two OMLA Violation Class Suits in Ohio
CLS TRANSPORTATION: Mayer Brown Files Amicus Brief in Class Suit
CREOLE AND CO: Recalls Creole Bisque Due to Undeclared Allergens
CYMER INC: Settlement of Merger-Related Suit No Court OK Yet
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Tate George Says Avatars Don't Resemble Him

ELI LILLY: "Ballard" Class Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
ETERNIT: Conviction of Former Executive in Asbestos Deaths Upheld
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 465,000 Cars Due to Fuel Leak Fire Risk
GARDNER DENVER: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Penn. and Del.
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Single-Serve Cinnamon Toast Crunch Bowlpak

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: FDA Seeks to Lift Restrictions on Avandia Use
GROMEX INC: Recalls Camaron Entero (Dried Whole Shrimp)
HALLIBURTON CO: Awaits Appellate Ct. Ruling in "John Fund" Suit
HALLIBURTON CO: Awaits Ruling on Sanction Bids in Macondo MDL
HD SHIPPING: Recalls Turbot Over Presence of Fluoroquinolones

HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Nichols" Suit
HELEN'S COUNTRY: Recalls Helen's Country Harvest Brand Products
HEWLETT PACKARD: Center for Class Action Fairness Balks at Coupons
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
J.L. TRADING: Recalls Tunnel Farm and Lucky Brand Products

J.B. HUNT: Bid to Stay Proceedings in California Suit Pending
LULULEMON: Recalled Luon Black Yoga Pants Back Into Stores
MONSANTO CO: Obtains Favorable Ruling From Supreme Court
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: "Miller" Suit Settlement to Be Filed Soon
NEW YORK, NY: Judge Expresses Interest in Wearable Police Cameras

PRIME FOOD: Recalls Latis Seafood Products Due to Listeria Risk
RAMBUS INC: Class Suits Alleging Securities Fraud Remain Pending
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE: To Vigorously Defend Scooter Parking Fee Suit
SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE: Hillsborough Survivors Mull Class Action
SP AUSNET: Power Line Maintenance Records Lacking, Engineer Says

TEREX CORP: Still Awaits Rulings on Bid to Dismiss Class Suits
TEXAS BRINE: Court Approves Class Action Over Louisiana Sinkhole
TOWNSEND FARMS: FDA Probes Berry Mix-Linked Hepatitis A Outbreak
TOWNSEND FARMS: Recalls Frozen Organic Antioxidant Blend Products
ULTRATECH INC: "Rice" Class Suit in California Now Closed

VOCCI ITALIAN: Recalls 2,025 Lbs. of Mislabeled Lasagna Products
WISDOMTREE INVESTMENTS: "Steinhardt" Class Suit Remains Pending
WOLTERS KLUWER: In Dispute with Plaintiffs Over Case Jurisdiction
YPF SOCIEDAD: Faces Suit Over Repsol Share Sale Transactions

* Dworken Donates Unclaimed Class Action Funds to New Directions
* Solar Industry Faces Solar Panel Quality Concerns
* Line of Toys Among Recent List of Recalled Products
* Chinese Premier Increases Monitoring of Baby Formula Production
* Drugmaker Urges FDA to Clarify Shared Risk Management Plan Laws


                             *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal From CO2 Emission Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in the plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate
branch of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.  The
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in federal district court.  The
court ordered all defendants to respond to the refiled complaints
in October 2011.  In March 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion for dismissal on several grounds, including the doctrine of
collateral estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.
The Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  Management will continue to defend against the claims.
Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that
are reasonably possible of occurring.

No further updates were reported in American Electric Power
Company, Inc.'s April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc. -- http://www.aep.com/-- was incorporated in New York in
1906 and reorganized in 1925.  The Company is a public utility
holding company that owns, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its public utility subsidiaries and
varying percentages of other subsidiaries.


AMERIFREIGHT SYSTEMS: Faces Labor Class Action in Cook County
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Amerifreight Systems/Valtrans
Express misclassifies drivers as contract employees to duck
overtime and labor laws, a class action claims in Cook County
Court.


APPLE: Faces Class Action Over Voiding Warranties
-------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple won't
stand behind its iPhone and iPod warranties, using "inherently
inaccurate" bits of indicator tape that change color when they
touch water to justify its breach of faith, a class action claims
in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Sean Pennington sued Apple on behalf of people who
tried to return iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 and iPod Touch devices that
didn't work and were still covered by Apple's "comprehensive one-
year warranty."

Pennington claims Apple uses the pieces of tape in a "bait and
switch," to boost sales and scam people out of their warranty
coverage.

"Specifically, Apple relies upon inherently inaccurate pieces of
white indicator tape located in areas exposed to the outside of
the class devices (which Apple labels 'liquid contact indicators'
or 'liquid submersion indicators') that change color when they
come in contact with water or other liquid to justify voiding the
warranty purportedly because the customer has abused the class
device by either submerging it or spilling liquid on it," the
complaint states.

It complaint continues: "The external pieces of indicator tape,
which are located at the base of the headphone jack at the top of
the class device and in the dock-connector housing at the bottom
of the class device, cannot accurately indicate whether a class
device has been subject to abuse through submersion or liquid
spills because they change color upon contact with normal, minimal
and non-consequential moisture or condensing humidity resulting
from the normal and expected use of the class device, which Apple
promotes and markets for a variety of uses, including recreational
and outdoors.  Moreover, the pieces of tape cannot and do not
indicate whether the reported malfunctions actually resulted from
abuse through submersion or liquid spills; they can only indicate
that the tape came in contact with moisture or humidity, including
an amount as little as a single drop of water that is completely
absorbed by the tape and that never intrudes into the interior of
the class device where it can come in contact with the device's
electronic circuitry."

iPhones sell for $99 to $499, and an iPod Touch for $199 to $399,
depending on features and storage space, the complaint states.

The class claims Apple knows the indicator tape is defective, but
immediately voids people's warranties and charges them for repairs
or sells them a new device instead of determining why the device
doesn't work.

It claims Apple also denies warranty claims under its "AppleCare
protection plan," which costs extra and supposedly provides better
coverage than the standard one-year warranty.

Through this unfair policy, Apple has unjustly enriched itself by
more than $5 million, and the class has been "improperly deprived
of the benefits of warranty coverage for defective class devices,"
and forced to buy "refurbished or new class devices to replace
their defective class devices," the complaint states.

The class seeks an injunction, declaratory relief, specific
performance and damages for breach of warranty, breach of faith,
unjust enrichment and violations of California business laws.

They are represented by Anthony F. Fata with Cafferty, Clobes,
Meriwether & Sprengel of Chicago, and Mark A. Chavez with Chavez &
Gertler of Mill Valley, Calif.

Lead plaintiff Pennington claims his iPhone 3G stopped working 8
months after he bought it while he was playing a fishing game he
downloaded.

When he took it in to an Apple Store, the repair tech told him the
phone was damaged by liquid and refused to repair or replace it,
though Pennington insisted he never got the phone wet.  The
manager refused to honor the warranty because the indicator tape
was pink.  Pennington claims he had to shell out $99 for a new
phone so he could retrieve his business information.


ATP OIL: Officers Face Suit Over False & Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that ATP Oil
and Gas Corp. lied about the effects the 2010 offshore drilling
moratorium had on its revenue, and the $1.5 billion in notes it
sold that year are going for just 4 cents on the dollar, a pension
fund claims in a class action.

The Firefighters Pension and Relief Fund of the City of New
Orleans sued on behalf of shareholders of ATP Oil and Gas Corp.,
which, presumably because it is bankrupt, is not named as
defendants.  Named as defendants in the federal complaint are 11
of the company's officers and J.P. Morgan Securities. ATP is or
was an offshore oil developer.

The class consists of investors "who purchased or otherwise
acquired 11.875 percent Senior Second Lien Exchange Notes (the
'Notes') pursuant and/or traceable to the company's December 16,
2010 exchange of approximately $1.5 billion in such notes, seeking
to pursue strict liability remedies under the Securities Act of
1933."

Less than two years after selling the notes, on Aug. 17, 2012, ATP
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy: "the truth was revealed that ATP
had: (1) severely downplayed the impact that the United States
Department of Interior moratoria had on the company's business and
revenues; (2) violated the provisions of certain credit agreements
to which the company was a party; and (3) issued a Registration
Statement that contained false and misleading statements and/or
omissions of material fact," the complaint states.

It continues: "As a result of the false and misleading
misstatements and omissions detailed herein, plaintiff and the
class suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.  As the
truth was revealed, the price of the notes fell precipitously, and
as of the date of the filing of this complaint, the notes are
trading for approximately four cents ($0.04) on the dollar."

The federal government issued two moratoria, in the summer and
fall of 2010, after the Deepwater Horizon disaster caused the
largest oil spill in the history of the Gulf of Mexico.

ATP officers named as defendants are then-CEO T. Paul Buhlman, CFO
Albert L. Reese, Jr., Chief Accounting Officer Keith R. Goodwin,
Chris A. Brisack, Arthur H. Dilly, Gerard J. Swonke, Brent M.
Longnecker, Walter Wendlandt, Burt A. Adams, George R. Edwards and
Robert J. Karow.

Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities "was the underwriter of the
exchange and served as a financial adviser and assistant in the
preparation and dissemination of ATP's false and misleading
Registration Statement and exchange materials," according to the
complaint.

The shareholders seek compensatory damages for violations of the
Securities Act.

They are represented by Andrew Lemmon of Hahnville, La.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend Suit Over Short-Term Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit alleging it made illegal short-term
loans in Georgia, 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 August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together
with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America.  In August 2006, James H. Greene
and Mennie Johnson were permitted to join the lawsuit as named
plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of
James E. Strong as a named plaintiff.  The lawsuit alleges many
different causes of action, among the most significant of which is
that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act
and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").  First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB")
and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some
time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's
Georgia operating locations.  The complaint in this lawsuit claims
that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans
made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in
the process is "a mere subterfuge."  Based on this claim, the
lawsuit alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and
was illegally operating in Georgia.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.  In November
2009, the case was certified as a class action lawsuit.

In August 2011, Cash America filed a motion for summary judgment,
and in October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment.  Hearings on the motions were held in
October and November 2011, and the trial court entered an order
granting summary judgment in favor of Cash America on one of the
plaintiff's claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion
and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary
judgment.  Cash America filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia
Court of Appeals in December 2011 on the grant of plaintiff's
partial summary judgment, and on November 6, 2012, the Georgia
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of partial
summary judgment to plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court's
denial of Cash America's motion for summary judgment.  Cash
America filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court of
Georgia to appeal the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals
regarding Cash America's motion for summary judgment on
November 26, 2012, which was denied on February 18, 2013.

The Company says it is currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20,
Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-Glossary, for this litigation.
Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this lawsuit
are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Cash America International, Inc. is a Fort Worth, Texas, retailer
which operates over 1,000 pawn shops in the United States.  The
Company also provides check-cashing services and short-term
unsecured loans both through its pawn shops as well as in self-
standing facilities, and also on the Internet under the name
"enovafinancial."


CASH AMERICA: Faces Two OMLA Violation Class Suits in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., is facing two class action
lawsuits alleging it improperly made loans under the Ohio Mortgage
Loan Act, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 28, 2009, a subsidiary of the Company, Ohio Neighborhood
Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland ("Cashland"), filed a
standard collections lawsuit in an Elyria Municipal Court in Ohio
against Rodney Scott seeking judgment against Mr. Scott in the
amount of $570.16, which was the amount due under his loan
agreement.  Cashland's loan was offered under the Ohio Mortgage
Loan Act (the "OMLA"), which allows for interest at a rate of 25%
per annum plus certain loan fees allowed by the statute.  The
Municipal Court held that short-term, single-payment consumer
loans made by Cashland are not authorized under the OMLA, and
instead should have been offered under the Ohio Short-Term Lender
Law, which was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008 for consumer
loans with similar terms.  Due to a cap on interest and loan fees
at an amount that is less than permitted under the OMLA, the
Company does not offer loans under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law.
On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals
affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision.  Although
this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District
of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where
Cashland operates seven stores and where the Company has modified
its short-term loan product in response to this decision, other
Ohio courts may consider this decision.

On April 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the
Company's appeal of the Ninth District Court's decision.  If the
Ninth District Court's decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme
Court on appeal, the Company's Ohio operations may be adversely
affected.  The Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans
in its retail services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is
unable to continue making short-term loans under this law, it will
have to alter its short-term loan product in Ohio.  In addition,
two lawsuits have been filed against the Company by customers in
Ohio in purported class action complaints alleging that it
improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the
future receive other claims.

Cash America International, Inc. is a Fort Worth, Texas, retailer
which operates over 1,000 pawn shops in the United States.  The
Company also provides check-cashing services and short-term
unsecured loans both through its pawn shops as well as in self-
standing facilities, and also on the Internet under the name
"enovafinancial."


CLS TRANSPORTATION: Mayer Brown Files Amicus Brief in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. at Mayer Brown reports that in the
wake of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the California Supreme
Court granted review in three cases involving significant
arbitration issues, including key questions about whether the
Federal Arbitration Act preempts California law concerning the
enforceability of arbitration agreements.

Mr. Parasharami and his colleagues have filed amicus briefs on
behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in all
three cases, the most recent of which is Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation, No. S204032.

In Iskanian, the Second District of the California Court of Appeal
had affirmed an order compelling individual arbitration in a
putative class/representative action alleging, among other things,
that the defendant had failed to pay overtime and provide required
meal and rest breaks.

The Chamber's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court
explains why the court of appeal was correct.

The starting point of our argument is the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Concepcion, which held that the FAA prevents states
from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements that require
individualized proceedings.  As the Supreme Court explained,
"[r]equiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes
with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a
scheme inconsistent with the FAA."

Critical to the Supreme Court's holding was its recognition that
"class arbitration" "is not arbitration as envisioned by the FAA"
and "lacks its benefits."  That is so for multiple reasons.  Class
arbitration "sacrifices the principal advantage of arbitration --
its informality -- and makes the process slower, more costly, and
more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment."
And because class arbitration involves the same high stakes as a
judicial class action without any meaningful opportunity for
judicial review, it is "hard to believe" that any company would
willingly agree to it.  Finally, when Congress enacted the FAA in
1925, the arbitration that it contemplated necessarily was
individual arbitration.  "[C]lass arbitration was not even
envisioned by Congress when it passed the FAA in 1925," as it "is
a 'relatively recent development."'

For these reasons, as the Ninth Circuit explained in Coneff v.
AT&T Corp., Concepcion establishes "that individualized
proceedings are an inherent and necessary element of arbitration."
We argue that virtually all of the Iskanian plaintiff's arguments
against arbitration fail in light of this principle. Here's a
summary of the points we make in our brief:

The California Supreme Court's decision in Gentry v. Superior
Court - upon which Iskanian relies - cannot stand in light of
Concepcion.  Gentry authorized a court to refuse to enforce an
arbitration agreement whenever the court determined, as a matter
of California public policy, that class procedures- rather than
individual arbitration -- are a more desirable means of resolving
an employment dispute. But that holding cannot be squared with
Concepcion's determination that, under the FAA, enforcement of an
agreement to arbitrate cannot be conditioned on the availability
of class procedures, no matter how much a state might desire them.

The FAA requires rejection of the plaintiff's contention that he
is entitled to proceed in court with representative claims under
California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").  Mayer Brown
explains in detail why -- just as class arbitration is not the
type of arbitration that the FAA contemplates-so-called
"representative" PAGA actions are also inconsistent with
arbitration.  PAGA is a bit of an odd duck; the statute authorizes
private plaintiffs to bring actions for civil penalties, both on
their own behalf and on behalf of other employees, for violations
of California's Labor Code.  Any proceeds are shared, with 25% of
the penalties going to the "aggrieved employees" and 75% to a
state agency.  Iskanian argues that this curiously structured
statute allows him to avoid FAA preemption, but as Mayer Brown
explains in the brief, Concepcion's clear holding is not so easily
evaded: the FAA preempts any state-law rule that would either
prevent all arbitration of PAGA claims or that would condition
enforcement of the arbitration agreement on Iskanian's ability to
pursue representative claims in arbitration.

Iskanian is wrong in asserting that the federal National Labor
Relations Act -- as recently interpreted by the National Labor
Relations Board in the D.R. Horton case -- precludes enforcement
of his arbitration agreement.  That NLRB decision may be
overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;
virtually all other courts to confront the question have rejected
the NLRB's conclusions, and for good reason: Decades of U.S.
Supreme Court precedent- including, most recently, CompuCredit
Corp. v. Greenwood- establish that the NLRA does not contain the
clear, "contrary congressional command" needed to override the
FAA's mandate to enforce as written agreements to arbitrate on an
individual basis.

Iskanian also raises an argument Mayer Brown has seen quite
frequently since Concepcion-namely, that the defendant waived its
right to compel arbitration by not sufficiently raising an
arbitration defense prior to the decision in Concepcion.  But both
federal and California cases erect a strong presumption against
waiver, and that presumption cannot be overcome because, until
Concepcion was decided, it was futile for businesses to seek
enforcement of agreements to arbitrate on an individual basis in
California in light of Gentry, Discover Bank v. Superior Court
(prohibiting class waivers in consumer arbitration agreements),
and their progeny.

A dozen additional amicus briefs have been filed, more or less
evenly divided between the two sides of the case. The parties will
respond in mid-June.  In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court's
pending decision in the American Express v. Italian Colors
Restaurant case is likely to prompt a round of supplemental
briefing.  It will likely be at least a few months before oral
argument is scheduled.  But this is certainly a case that
employers in California -- as well as other businesses that face
class actions in that state -- will want to watch.

In the meantime, for those who are interested, Mayer Brown's
amicus briefs in the two other cases pending before the California
Supreme Court are available here: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.,
No. S199119; Sonic Calabasas A Inc. v. Moreno (pdf), No. S174475.


CREOLE AND CO: Recalls Creole Bisque Due to Undeclared Allergens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Creole & Company, LLC of New Orleans, Louisiana, is recalling its
3.47 oz package of Creole Bisque because it contains milk, soy,
and wheat and was distributed without the ingredient statement
which declares its presence.  People who have allergies to milk,
soy, and wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled packages of Creole Bisque were distributed in
Louisiana in retail stores.

The product comes in a 3.47 oz, clear plastic package with UPC
8117766014869.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm355435.htm

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that packages of
the Creole Bisque were distributed in packaging that did not have
an ingredient statement.  Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the Company's
production and packaging processes.  Production and distribution
of the product has been suspended until further notice.

Consumers who have purchased 3.47 ounce packages of Creole Bisque
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 225-
362-0819, Monday through Friday, 12:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.


CYMER INC: Settlement of Merger-Related Suit No Court OK Yet
------------------------------------------------------------
Cymer, Inc. has yet to seek court approval of its settlement of a
merger-related class action lawsuit in Nevada, 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 October 16, 2012, the Company entered into the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among (i) ASML
Holdings N.V. ("ASML"), (ii) solely for purposes of Article II,
Article IV, Article VI and Article X, ASML US Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ASML
("Holdco"), and Kona Technologies, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub 2"),
(iii) Kona Acquisition Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub"), and (iv) the
Company.  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, and
immediately thereafter, the Company will be merged with and into
Merger Sub 2.

On October 29, 2012, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed against Cymer, the Cymer Board, ASML, Holdco, Merger Sub
and Merger Sub 2 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada,
captioned Jerome v. Cymer, Inc. et al., Case No. A-12-671009-C
(Eighth Judicial Dist. Clark County, Nevada), challenging the
Merger and seeking, among other things, compensatory damages,
attorneys' and experts' fees and injunctive relief concerning the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to prohibit the defendants
from consummating the Merger.  The plaintiff subsequently amended
the complaint on November 28, 2012.

The lawsuit generally alleges, among other things, that the Merger
Agreement was reached through an unfair process, that the Merger
consideration is inadequate, that the Merger Agreement unfairly
caps the price of Cymer common stock, that the Merger Agreement's
"no solicitation" provision and other deal protection devices have
precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers
for Cymer, and that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus
filed in connection with the Merger contains material
misstatements and/or omissions.  The lawsuit alleges that ASML
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On December 31, 2012, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the lawsuit.  While the defendants believe
that the lawsuit is without merit, in order to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in further litigation,
the defendants have agreed, as part of the memorandum of
understanding and without admitting to the validity of any
allegations made in the lawsuit, to make certain additional
disclosure requested by the plaintiff in the proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
certain confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice
to the Company's stockholders.  If the settlement is finally
approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith (other than claims to enforce the
settlement).  In addition, the memorandum of understanding
contemplates that, if the Merger is consummated and if the
settlement is approved, Cymer or its successor shall be
responsible for any attorneys' fees of the plaintiff that may be
awarded by the District Court of Clark County, Nevada.  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada, will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

The Company does not expect the outcome of this lawsuit to have a
material effect on its operating results, financial condition and
cash flow.

Cymer, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets light sources for
sale to customers, who manufacture photolithography tools in the
semiconductor equipment industry.  The San Diego, California-based
Company sells replacement parts and supports directly to chipmaker
customers as well as to its lithography tool manufacturer
customers.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Tate George Says Avatars Don't Resemble Him
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that one of
the named plaintiffs in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use
of college athletes' names and likenesses said in a deposition
that the avatars in several versions of a video game that are
supposed to represent him do not resemble him and that the same
face also appears on other players representing other teams.

Former Connecticut guard Tate George was deposed in March 2012 by
lawyers representing each of the defendants in the case -- the
NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and Collegiate
Licensing Co., the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing
and marketing firm.

Portions of the deposition were made public on May 20 in a filing
with a U.S. District Court in California by lawyers for EA and CLC
in connection with their opposition to the case being certified as
a class action.  A hearing on class certification is scheduled for
June 20.

If the case is certified as a class action, it likely would bring
thousands of current and former college athletes into the case and
potentially place billions of dollars in damages at stake.

At issue is whether the defendants have illegally used the names
and likenesses of college football and men's basketball players.

Mr. George and the other plaintiffs, including former UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon, allege that the defendants violated
anti-trust law by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of
compensation athletes can receive for the use of their names,
images and likenesses in products or media while they are in
school and by requiring athletes to sign forms under which they
allegedly relinquish in perpetuity all rights pertaining to the
use of the names, images and likenesses in ways including TV
contracts, rebroadcasts of games, and video game, jersey and other
apparel sales.

Documents filed by the plaintiffs last fall included e-mails by,
and among, NCAA and EA employees that, according to the
plaintiffs, indicate the NCAA knew EA made its products with the
purpose of having the game characters "match as closely as
possible the real-life characteristics" of actual student-
athletes.  The plaintiffs' lawyers also said the NCAA was aware
that other companies had developed ways for the names of actual
student-athletes to be added to the games and "knowingly
tolerated" it.

In the deposition unveiled on May 20, Mr. George was presented
with pages showing frame grabs from the 2006 version of an EA
Sports game in which past college basketball teams, including
George's 1990 Connecticut team, are depicted.

He was then questioned by Gregory Curtner about whether the player
shown resembles Mr. George.

Curtner: "But you did wear Number 32?"

George: "Yes."

Q: And do you agree that that Number 32 belonged to the University
of Connecticut, not to you?

A: From what I was told, yes.

Q: And, certainly, the Huskies logo belongs to the University of
Connecticut and not to you?

A: Correct.

Q: And you would not say that that looks like you as you appeared
in 1990?

A: No. I'm cuter.

Mr. Curtner goes on the ask whether the same avatar also is used
for a player from the 1987 Syracuse team.

Curtner: But you can confirm that it's the same person in a
different uniform, or the same facial avatar?

George: It looks that way, yes.

Q: And, again, this is not you?

A: No.

Mr. Curtner asked the same questions and got the same basic answer
from Mr. George about an avatar for a player from the 1983
Virginia team.

Mr. Curtner then went through a similar exercise with Mr. George
with screen shots from the 2008 version of an EA Sports game. Mr.
Curtner established with Mr. George the look of a player shown as
wearing No. 32 for Connecticut's 1990 team, whereupon Mr. George
said the avatar did not look like him but did look like avatars
associated with nearly a dozen other teams, some from other years.

The exchange ends with Mr. Curtner asking: "Long Beach State,
North Carolina State, and Arizona, 1997.  These all have the same
face, none of them are you, and they all have a variety of
different sizes, weights, and positions, correct?"

George's reply: "Correct."

Messrs. Curtner and George then went through similar exchanges
concerning two other versions of EA Sports games.


ELI LILLY: "Ballard" Class Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ballard, et al. v. Eli Lilly and
Company, 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.

A putative class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ballard, et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company et al.) against Lilly and other manufacturers
seeking to assert product liability claims on behalf of U.S.
residents, who ingested propoxyphene pain products and allegedly
sustained personal injuries.  Lilly was dismissed with prejudice
following a dispositive motion; however, the case remains open as
other defendants have not been dismissed and there is currently no
final appealable order.  The Company transferred the U.S.
regulatory approvals and all marketing rights to its propoxyphene
products in 2002 to NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (an affiliate of
aaiPharma, Inc.), which subsequently transferred all such
approvals and marketing rights to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Company --
http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
sells products, in one business segment, pharmaceutical products.
The Company also has an animal health business segment.  The
Company manufactures and distributes its products through
facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico, and 15 other
countries.


ETERNIT: Conviction of Former Executive in Asbestos Deaths Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an appeals court in Turin,
Italy, has upheld the conviction of a Swiss man for negligence in
some 2,000 asbestos-related deaths blamed on contamination from a
construction company.

Stephan Schmidheiny, a former executive and key shareholder in the
Swiss construction firm Eternit, was sentenced on June 3 to 18
years, up from 16 years meted out by a lower court in 2012.

A Belgian shareholder, who was convicted in the first trial, died
before the latest verdict.

Mr. Schmidheiny's attorneys said they would appeal the verdict to
Italy's top criminal court.

The Turin court, by increasing the sentence, held the defendant
responsible for two other Eternit plants, plus the Turin-area one
covered in the first trial.

Prosecutors argued Eternit failed to stop asbestos fibers left
over from production from spreading across the region.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 465,000 Cars Due to Fuel Leak Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Isidore, writing for CNNMoney, reports that Ford Motor is
recalling 465,000 of its current model year cars due to a fuel
leak that poses a fire risk.

The company said the models include 2013 Ford Explorer, Taurus,
Flex, Fusion, Interceptor Utility and Interceptor Sedan, as well
as the Lincoln MKS, MKT and MKZ.

Ford (F, Fortune 500) said it is not aware of any incidents of
fire due to the fuel leak, or of any injuries caused by the
defect.  Ford said it had received 600 complaints about the fuel
leak from customers as of March 31.

Last July, Ford recalled 11,500 of its 2013 Escape SUVs because a
defect in the fuel line that could cause a fire.  At the time Ford
took the unusual step of advising drivers not to even drive the
vehicles until they were repaired.  There was no such warning with
the most recent recall.

Ford also announced two small recalls.  It has recalled 500 2013
Lincoln MKZ vehicles because the insulation on the engine block
heater can crack at extremely low temperatures.  Additionally,
Ford said that 25 2013 Fusions are at risk of impaired steering or
the loss of steering control due the lack of an internal retaining
clip.


GARDNER DENVER: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Penn. and Del.
------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc., is facing merger-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania and Delaware, 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 7, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with an affiliate of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P.
("KKR"), pursuant to which the Company would be acquired by an
affiliate of KKR for $76.00 per share in cash and would cease to
be a publicly traded company.  Consummation of the merger is
subject to shareholder approval, certain customary closing
conditions and regulatory approvals.  Subject to satisfaction of
the closing conditions and receipt of the required approvals, it
is expected that the merger will close in the third quarter of
2013.

In connection with the Company's entry into a definitive merger
agreement with KKR, four purported shareholders have filed
substantially similar complaints.  On March 14, 2013, a purported
shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a complaint styled as a class
action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County,
Pennsylvania (Chester County Common Pleas Court).  The case
caption of this complaint (Carson Complaint) is: Jack Carson,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Gardner Denver, Inc., Renaissance Parent Corp., Renaissance
Acquisition Corp., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., Michael C.
Arnold, Donald G. Barger, John D. Craig, Raymond R. Hipp, David D.
Petratis, Diane K. Schumacher, Charles L. Szews, Richard L.
Thompson and Michael M. Larsen, No. 13-02341.

On March 15, 2013, a second purported shareholder of Gardner
Denver filed a substantially similar complaint (Shoemaker
Complaint) in Chester County Common Pleas Court captioned Glenn
Shoemaker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., No. 13-02372. Unlike
the Carson Complaint, the Shoemaker Complaint does not name Mr.
Larsen or KKR as defendants.  Both complaints assert that the
members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in agreeing to the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent,
Acquisition Sub and, in the case of the Carson Complaint, KKR
aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Carson
Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and seeks other equitable
relief.  The Shoemaker Complaint seeks money damages.

On March 27, 2013, a third purported shareholder of Gardner Denver
filed a substantially similar complaint (White Complaint) in the
Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Daniel White, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Larsen, et al.,
C.A. No. 8439-VCN.  The White Complaint asserts that the members
of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent,
Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The White Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger
and an award of money damages.

On April 22, 2013, a fourth purported shareholder of Gardner
Denver filed a complaint (Minzer Complaint) in the Delaware Court
of Chancery captioned Shoshana Minzer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Larsen, et al., C.A. No.
8498.  The Minzer Complaint asserts that the members of the Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the
merger and in failing to make material disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the merger,
and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition, Acquisition Sub and
KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
Minzer Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and an award of money
damages.

On April 25, 2013, plaintiff Glenn Shoemaker filed a complaint
(Shoemaker Delaware Complaint) in the Delaware Court of Chancery
captioned Glenn Shoemaker, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 8505.  The Shoemaker Delaware Complaint makes substantively
identical allegations to the Minzer Complaint: asserting that the
members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in agreeing to the merger and in failing to make material
disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection
with the merger, and that Parent, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided
and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Shoemaker
Delaware Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger.

The Company believes that the lawsuits filed in connection with
the Company's entry into a merger agreement with KKR are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.  Additional
lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the
merger may be filed in the future.  There is no assurance that the
Company or any of the other defendants will be successful in the
outcome of the pending or any potential future lawsuits.

Gardner Denver, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.  The Company designs,
manufactures, markets and services a diverse group of products for
industrial, commercial and OEM applications, engineered systems
and general industry.


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Single-Serve Cinnamon Toast Crunch Bowlpak
-----------------------------------------------------------------

   * No Other Varieties or Sizes of Cinnamon Toast Crunch Are
     Involved

General Mills announced a voluntary Class I recall of a small
quantity of single-serve reduced-sugar Cinnamon Toast Crunch
bowlpak sold in foodservice establishments.

This action is being taken as a precaution because the company was
notified by an ingredient supplier that it had recalled an
ingredient due to the possible presence of salmonella.  No
illnesses have been associated with this finding.

The recall affects approximately 168 cases of product.  No other
varieties or sizes of Cinnamon Toast Crunch are involved.  No
other General Mills products are impacted.  This voluntary recall
includes single-serve reduced-sugar Cinnamon Toast Crunch bowlpaks
with the following "Better if Used By" dates printed on the
package:

             * 31AUG2013
             * 02SEP2013

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm355310.htm

Foodservice operators or consumers who have this product are urged
to dispose of the product and contact General Mills toll-free at
1-800-328-1144 for a replacement.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections, particularly in young children, the elderly and
people with weakened immune systems.  Healthy people infected with
salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting
and/or abdominal pain. For more information, visit the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/

General Mills is one of the world's leading food companies,
operating in more than 100 countries.  Its brands include
Cheerios, Fiber One, Haagen-Dazs, Nature Valley, Yoplait, Betty
Crocker, Pillsbury, Green Giant, Old El Paso, and Wanchai Ferry.
Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, General Mills had
fiscal 2012 worldwide sales of $16.7 billion.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: FDA Seeks to Lift Restrictions on Avandia Use
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
former blockbuster diabetes pill which was subjected to major
safety restrictions in 2010 may not be as risky as once thought,
according to the latest analysis of the much-debated
GlaxoSmithKline drug Avandia.

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing a new interpretation
of the key study of Avandia's heart attack risks, which suggests
the drug is as safe as older diabetes drugs.  At a highly unusual
meeting, the FDA will ask a panel of experts to vote on a range of
options for the drug, including lifting restrictions on its use.

The positive safety review from Duke University researchers is the
latest twist in a years-long debate over Avandia, which has
divided medical experts, cost Glaxo billions of dollars and
possibly resulted in an unknown number of patient heart attacks.

First approved in 1999, Avandia became the top-selling diabetes
pill in the world by 2006 with sales of $3.4 billion.  But
prescriptions plummeted the following year after an analysis of
dozens of studies suggested Avandia could raise the risk of heart
attack.

For three years the FDA struggled to answer a seemingly simple
question: Does Avandia increase the risk of heart attacks? A
definitive answer has never been reached, in part because patients
with diabetes are already predisposed to heart problems.  That
makes it extremely difficult to tell which heart attacks are drug-
related and which are simply a result of the underlying disease.

Finally in 2010 the FDA decided to restrict the drug's use to all
but the rarest of cases.  Regulators in Europe banned the drug
outright.

FDA critics have speculated that the real purpose of this week's
meeting is to vindicate FDA officials who kept Avandia on the
market for so many years.  They say regulators appear poised to
roll back safety limits on the drug.

"It's the wrong reason to take a regulatory action," said
Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, who authored the 2007
analysis that first raised public safety concerns about Avandia.

"You want to take a regulatory action because it's going to
benefit patients.  I don't see how patients could possibly benefit
from lifting these regulatory restrictions."

Mr. Nissen says he requested time to make a presentation during
the meeting but was turned down by FDA officials.

The FDA says the May 30 and May 31 meeting was prompted by a new
analysis of the lone study of Avandia's heart risks.  Known as
RECORD, the study followed 4,400 patients and tracked rates of
heart attack, hospitalization and death for six years.

The results were first reported in 2009 and medical experts have
been debating their legitimacy ever since.

At the last Avandia panel meeting in 2010, FDA leadership
generally backed RECORD's findings that Avandia appeared as safe
as other standard diabetes drugs.  But FDA staff scientists said
the study was unreliable because of underreported heart attacks
and other design flaws.  Because of that disagreement the FDA
asked Glaxo to obtain an independent analysis by an outside party.

The new analysis by the Duke Clinical Research Institute generally
supports Glaxo's original findings.  In documents posted on
May 20, an FDA review of Duke's analysis states: "These results
show no statistically significant evidence to suggest an increased
cardiovascular risk."

Despite that assessment, the agency says it "has not reached any
final updated conclusions" on the heart safety of Avandia.

The FDA will seek advice from two panels comprised of outside
experts in the fields of diabetes and drug safety.  The panelists
will be asked to vote on four options for Avandia:

- Removing the drug's safety restrictions

- Leaving the safety restrictions in place

- Modifying the safety restrictions

- Withdrawing the drug from the market entirely

At the last FDA meeting on Avandia in 2010, the panelists voted 21
to 12 to leave Avandia on the market.  The group's recommendations
are not binding and are only one part of the government's
decision-making process.

Even if the latest reassessment clears Avandia's safety record,
the real-world impact could be minimal.

Avandia is currently prescribed to just 3,000 patients in the U.S.
In 2009 the drug was prescribed 2.7 million times.

Because of FDA restrictions put in place in 2010, patients can now
only get the drug after signing a waiver from their doctor
indicating that they understand the risks and have tried all other
drug options to treat their disease.

Glaxo executives say they believe the drug should remain available
for patients with hard-to-treat diabetes, but the company has no
plans to resume advertising of the drug.

"I think there are patients who benefit from this drug and I would
hope the committee continues to allow Avandia to be prescribed to
the right patients," said Glaxo vice president Murray Stewart.

Mr. Stewart stressed that Glaxo did not request the panel meeting,
which was set up by the FDA.

"We were phoned up earlier in the year and told they were having
an advisory meeting and that GSK should present," Mr. Stewart
said.

Wall Street analysts have dubbed the meeting a "non-event" from a
financial perspective, since Glaxo's stock price long ago absorbed
the impact of the Avandia controversy.

Last July Glaxo plead guilty to failing to report safety problems
with Avandia to government officials over a seven-year period.
The guilty plea was part of a larger $3 billion settlement with
the Department of Justice for various criminal and civil
violations involving 10 Glaxo drugs.

In November, the company paid $90 million to settle allegations
from 38 state governments that the company misrepresented the
risks of Avandia.

The company has also settled tens of thousands of personal injury
lawsuits filed by Avandia patients, though it has never specified
the exact number.  In May there were 3,750 cases pending before
U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia Rufe in Philadelphia, where
various Avandia cases from around the country have been
consolidated.


GROMEX INC: Recalls Camaron Entero (Dried Whole Shrimp)
-------------------------------------------------------
Gromex Inc. of Passaic, New Jersey, is recalling Camaron Entero
(dried whole shrimp) because it may contain undeclared bisulfites.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life threating allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Camaron Entero (dried whole shrimp) was distributed in New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut and was reached by direct
delivery and through retail stores.

The product is packaged in a 1 1/2 oz. clear plastic bag with the
Gromex Inc. logo on the top left corner.

No injuries or illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after Gromex Inc. was inspected by the
FDA and found the Camaron Entero (dried whole shrimp) may contain
Bisulfites which was not indicated on the labeling.

Consumers who have purchased this product may return the product
to the store where it was purchased for a replacement or refund.
Consumers with questions or concerns may contact Gromex Inc. at
973-458-9399, Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Eastern
Standard Time).


HALLIBURTON CO: Awaits Appellate Ct. Ruling in "John Fund" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company is awaiting a court decision on an appeal in
the class action lawsuit filed by Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,
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 June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with
the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term
construction projects and related disclosures.  In the weeks that
followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed
against the Company.  Several of those lawsuits also named as
defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and
directors.  The class action cases were later consolidated, and
the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard
Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served
upon the Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of
lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has
changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).  The
Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the Company's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the Company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it files a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company files its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in
August 2005.  In March 2006, the court entered an order in which
it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising
prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain
other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those
claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.  In April
2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal
of the claims against all individual defendants other than the
Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The court ordered that
the case proceed against the Company and its CEO.

In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company's response was filed in November
2007.  The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued
an order November 3, 2008, denying the motion for class
certification.  The Fund appealed the district court's order to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order denying class certification.  On
May 13, 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court.  In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted
the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal.  The Court heard
oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011,
reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove
loss causation in order to obtain class certification.  The
Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation
requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for
further consideration of the Company's other arguments for denying
class certification.  The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the
district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an order
certifying the class.  The Company filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted and the case is
stayed at the district court pending this appeal.

In March 2013, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in the
appeal.  The Company is awaiting a ruling on the appeal from the
Fifth Circuit.  In spite of its age, the case is at an early
stage, and the Company cannot predict the outcome or consequences
thereof.  As of March 31, 2013, the Company had not accrued any
amounts related to this matter because the Company does not
believe that a loss is probable.  Further, an estimate of possible
loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be made.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

Halliburton Company provides services and products to the energy
industry.  The Company serves the upstream oil and natural gas
industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir, from locating
hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and
formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and
optimizing production through the life of the field.  The Company
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.


HALLIBURTON CO: Awaits Ruling on Sanction Bids in Macondo MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company is awaiting court decisions on requests for
sanctions against it in the multidistrict litigation related to
the Macondo well incident, 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 semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on
April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that
began on April 20, 2010.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by
Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well
in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the
lease operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP
Exploration), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. (BP
p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates, collectively, BP).
There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result
of the Macondo well incident.  Crude oil escaping from the Macondo
well site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico and reached the United States Gulf Coast.  The Company
performed a variety of services for BP Exploration, including
cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while-
drilling, and rig data acquisition services.

Since April 21, 2010, the plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits
relating to the Macondo well incident.  Generally, those lawsuits
allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and
contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax
revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to
engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful
death or personal injuries.  The Company is named along with other
unaffiliated defendants in more than 650 complaints, most of which
are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and
at least eight personal injury lawsuits involving four decedents
and at least 10 allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling
rig at the time of the incident.  At least six additional lawsuits
naming the Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries
sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil spill.  The
Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits in federal and state
courts throughout the United States.  Except for certain lawsuits
not yet consolidated, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against the Company
consolidated in the MDL proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in
the United States Eastern District of Louisiana.  The pollution
complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and
gross negligence, property damages, taking of protected species,
and potential economic losses as a result of environmental
pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have brought a lawsuit
under various legal provisions, including the The Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA), The Clean Water Act (CWA), The Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA), the Outer Continental Shelf Land (OCSLA), the Longshoremen
and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, general maritime law, state
common law, and various state environmental and products liability
statutes.

Furthermore, the pollution complaints include lawsuits brought
against the Company by governmental entities, including the State
of Alabama, the State of Florida, the State of Louisiana, the
State of Mississippi, numerous local governmental entities, and
three Mexican states.  Complaints brought against the Company by
at least seven other parishes in Louisiana were dismissed with
prejudice, and the dismissal is being appealed by those parishes.
The wrongful death and other personal injury complaints generally
allege negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of
compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages, and
punitive damages.  The Company has retained counsel and is
investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery,
damages asserted, and the Company's respective defenses to all of
these claims.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed
by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation
Action).  In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its
liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to
the value of the rig and its freight.  While the Limitation Action
has been formally consolidated into the MDL, the court is
nonetheless, in some respects, treating the Limitation Action as
an associated but separate proceeding.  In February 2011,
Transocean tendered the Company, along with all other defendants,
into the Limitation Action.  As a result of the tender, the
Company and all other defendants will be treated as direct
defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had sued
the Company and the other defendants directly.  In the Limitation
Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation of liability
among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits associated with
the Macondo well incident, including those in the MDL proceeding
that are pending in his court.  Specifically, the Company believes
the judge will determine the liability, limitation, exoneration,
and fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants in a
trial, which is scheduled to occur in at least two phases and
which began on February 25, 2013.  The first phase of this portion
of the trial is covering issues arising out of the conduct and
degree of culpability of various parties allegedly relevant to the
loss of well control, the ensuing fire and explosion on and
sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, and the initiation of the
release of hydrocarbons from the Macondo well.  The MDL court has
projected September 2013 for the beginning of the second phase of
this portion of the trial, which is scheduled to cover actions
relating to attempts to control the flow of hydrocarbons from the
well and the quantification of hydrocarbons discharged from the
well.  Subsequent proceedings would be held to the extent triable
issues remain unsolved by the first two phases of the trial,
settlements, motion practice, or stipulation.  Although the DOJ is
participating in the first two phases of the trial with regard to
BP's conduct and the amount of hydrocarbons discharged from the
well, it is anticipated that the DOJ's civil action for the CWA
and OPA violations, fines, and penalties will be addressed by the
court in a subsequent phase or proceeding.  The Company does not
believe that a single apportionment of liability in the Limitation
Action is properly applied, particularly with respect to gross
negligence and punitive damages, to the hundreds of lawsuits
pending in the MDL proceeding.

Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including
punitive damages, are expected to be tried following the two
phases of the trial.  Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases
would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the
courts from which they were transferred into the MDL.  It remains
unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action
will have on where these matters are tried.  Discovery with
respect to the second phase of the trial is ongoing.  The MDL
court is currently considering the scope of a potential third
phase of the trial.

In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings filed
numerous cross claims and third party claims against certain other
defendants.  BP Exploration and BP America Production Company
filed claims against the Company seeking subrogation,
contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA,
and direct damages, and alleging negligence, gross negligence,
fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent concealment.  Transocean filed
claims against the Company seeking indemnification, and
subrogation and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the Deepwater
Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of warranty of
workmanlike performance.  Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and
Anadarko E&P Company LP (together, Anadarko) filed claims against
the Company seeking tort indemnity and contribution, and alleging
negligence, gross negligence and willful misconduct, and MOEX
Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX), who had an approximate 10% interest in
the Macondo well at the time of the incident, filed a claim
against the Company alleging negligence.  Cameron International
Corporation (Cameron) (the manufacturer and designer of the
blowout preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and
services, among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and
Weatherford International, Inc. (together, Weatherford) (providers
of casing components, including float equipment and centralizers,
and services), and Dril-Quip, Inc. (Dril-Quip) (provider of
wellhead systems), each filed claims against the Company seeking
indemnification and contribution, including with respect to
liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and alleging
negligence.  Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against the
Company.  In addition to the claims against the Company, generally
the defendants in the proceedings filed claims, including for
liabilities under the OPA and other claims similar to those
asserted in the proceedings, against the other defendants.  BP has
since announced that it has settled those claims between it and
each of MOEX, Weatherford, Anadarko, and Cameron.  Also, BP and M-
I Swaco have dismissed all claims between them.

In April 2011, the Company  filed claims against BP Exploration,
BP p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I
Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and
numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and
response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and
indemnification and alleging negligence.  The Company's claims
also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part
of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford.  The Company also
filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual
indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip
for strict products liability, although the court has since issued
orders dismissing all claims asserted against Cameron, Dril-Quip,
M-I Swaco and Weatherford in the MDL.  The Company filed its
answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's
right to limit its liability, denying all claims and
responsibility for the incident, seeking contribution and
indemnification, and alleging negligence and gross negligence.

Judge Barbier has issued an order, among others, clarifying
certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his
court.  The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply,
and therefore all claims brought under state law causes of action
were dismissed; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought
directly against defendants who are non-"responsible parties"
under the OPA with the exception of pure economic loss claims by
plaintiffs other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for
damages, including pure economic loss claims, may be brought under
the OPA directly against responsible parties; and (4) punitive
damage claims can be brought against both responsible and non-
responsible parties under general maritime law.  As discussed,
with respect to the ruling that claims for damages may be brought
under the OPA against responsible parties, the Company has not
been named as a responsible party under the OPA, but BP
Exploration has filed a claim against the Company for contribution
with respect to liabilities incurred by BP Exploration under the
OPA.

In September 2011, the Company filed claims in Harris County,
Texas, against the BP Defendants seeking damages, including lost
profits and exemplary damages, and alleging negligence, grossly
negligent misrepresentation, defamation, common law libel,
slander, and business disparagement.  The Company's claims allege
that the BP Defendants knew or should have known about an
additional hydrocarbon zone in the well that the BP Defendants
failed to disclose to the Company prior to its designing the
cement program for the Macondo well.  The location of the
hydrocarbon zones is critical information required prior to
performing cementing services and is necessary to achieve desired
cement placement.  The Company believes that had the BP Defendants
disclosed the hydrocarbon zone to the Company, the Company would
not have proceeded with the cement program unless it was
redesigned, which likely would have required a redesign of the
production casing.  In addition, the Company believes that the BP
Defendants withheld this information from the report of BP's
internal investigation team and from the various investigations.
In connection with this, the Company also moved to amend its
claims against the BP Defendants in the MDL proceeding to include
fraud.  The BP Defendants have denied all of the allegations
relating to the additional hydrocarbon zone and filed a motion to
prevent the Company from adding its fraud claim in the MDL.  In
October 2011, the Company's motion to add the fraud claim against
the BP Defendants in the MDL proceeding was denied.  The court's
ruling does not, however, prevent the Company from using the
underlying evidence in its pending claims against the BP
Defendants.

In December 2011, BP filed a motion for sanctions against the
Company alleging, among other things, that the Company destroyed
evidence relating to post-incident testing of the foam cement
slurry on the Deepwater Horizon and requesting adverse findings
against the Company.  The magistrate judge in the MDL proceeding
denied BP's motion.  BP appealed that ruling, and Judge Barbier
affirmed the magistrate judge's decision.

In April 2012, BP announced that it had reached definitive
settlement agreements with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
(PSC) to resolve the substantial majority of eligible private
economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Macondo well
incident.  The PSC acts on behalf of individuals and business
plaintiffs in the MDL.  According to BP, the settlements do not
include claims against BP made by the DOJ or other federal
agencies or by states and local governments.  In addition, the
settlements provide that, to the extent permitted by law, BP will
assign to the settlement class certain of its claims, rights, and
recoveries against Transocean and the Company for damages,
including BP's alleged direct damages such as damages for clean-up
expenses and damage to the well and reservoir.  The Company does
not believe that its contract with BP Exploration permits the
assignment of certain claims to the settlement class without the
Company's consent.  In April and May 2012, BP and the PSC filed
two settlement agreements and amendments with the MDL court, one
agreement addressing economic claims and one agreement addressing
medical claims, as well as numerous supporting documents and
motions requesting that the court approve, among other things, the
certification of the classes for both settlements and a schedule
for holding a fairness hearing and approving the settlements.  The
MDL court has since confirmed certification of the classes for
both settlements and granted final approval of the settlements.
The Company objected to the settlements on the grounds it sets
forth, among other reasons.  The MDL court held, however, that the
Company, as a non-settling defendant, lacked standing to object to
the settlements but noted that it did not express any opinion as
to the validity of BP's assignment of certain claims to the
settlement class and that the settlements do not affect any of the
Company's procedural or substantive rights in the MDL.  The
Company says it is unable to predict at this time the effect that
the settlements may have on claims against it.

In October 2012, the MDL court issued an order dismissing three
types of the plaintiff claims: (1) claims by or on behalf of
owners, lessors, and lessees of real property that allege to have
suffered a reduction in the value of real property even though the
property was not physically touched by oil and the property was
not sold; (2) claims for economic losses based solely on
consumers' decisions not to purchase fuel or goods from BP fuel
stations and stores based on consumer animosity toward BP; and (3)
claims by or on behalf of recreational fishermen, divers,
beachgoers, boaters and others that allege damages such as loss of
enjoyment of life from their inability to use portions of the Gulf
of Mexico for recreational and amusement purposes.  The MDL court
also noted that the Company is not liable with respect to those
claims under the OPA because the Company is not a "responsible
party" under OPA.

The MDL trial is underway.  At the conclusion of the plaintiffs'
case, the Company and the other defendants each submitted a motion
requesting the MDL court to dismiss certain claims.  In March
2013, the MDL court denied the Company's motion and declined to
dismiss any claims, including those alleging gross negligence,
against BP, Transocean and the Company.  In addition, the MDL
court dismissed all claims against M-I Swaco and claims alleging
gross negligence against Cameron.  In April 2013, the MDL court
dismissed all remaining claims against Cameron, leaving BP,
Transocean, and the Company as the remaining defendants.

Also in March 2013, the Company advised the MDL court that the
Company recently found a rig sample of dry cement blend collected
at another well that was cemented before the Macondo well using
the same dry cement blend as used on the Macondo production
casing.  In April 2013, the Company advised the MDL parties that
the Company recently discovered some additional documents related
to the Macondo well incident.  BP and others have asked the court
to impose sanctions and adverse findings against the Company
because, according to their allegations, the Company should have
identified the cement sample in 2010 and the additional documents
by October 2011.  The MDL court has not ruled on the requests for
sanctions and adverse findings.  The Company believes that the
recent discoveries were the result of simple misunderstandings or
mistakes, and that sanctions are not warranted.

Testimony relating to the first phase of the MDL trial has been
completed.  The MDL court has indicated that it will issue a
schedule for the parties to provide proposed findings of facts and
conclusions of law and for post-trial briefing.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation,
fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident and
to vigorously pursue any damages, remedies, or other rights
available to the Company as a result of the Macondo well incident.
The Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur
significant legal fees and costs, some of which the Company
expects to be covered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of
the numerous investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident.

Halliburton Company provides services and products to the energy
industry.  The Company serves the upstream oil and natural gas
industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir, from locating
hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and
formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and
optimizing production through the life of the field.  The Company
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.


HD SHIPPING: Recalls Turbot Over Presence of Fluoroquinolones
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            May 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           HD Shipping Canada Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8054

Affected products:

   Brand                               Code(s) on
   name     Common name       Size      product      UPC
   ----     -----------       ----      -------      ---
   None     Turbot (Psetta    750 g       None       None
            maxima)


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Nichols" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its latest
motion to remand a class action lawsuit back to state court,
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 has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on
March 28, 2003, by several individual stockholders in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company, some of
its former officers, and the Company's former investment bank
engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent the Company's
earnings and financial position.  The plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.  This case was consolidated
with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and
was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010, to which the
Company responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22,
2010.  During a hearing on February 24, 2012, the plaintiffs'
counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against the
Company.  Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against
HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit.  On
September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint
to request certification as a class action.  One of those named
officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal
district court, most recently on December 11, 2012.

The Company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013.

At this time, the Company does not know when the court will rule
on the motion to remand.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in this case.  Based on the stage of litigation, review of
the current facts and circumstances as the Company understands
them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the
proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense it
continues to mount, the Company does not believe an adverse
judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also
not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of
possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or
settlement of this case.

Headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, HealthSouth Corporation owns
and operates inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the United
States of America.  The Company also provides specialized
rehabilitative treatment on both an inpatient and outpatient
basis.


HELEN'S COUNTRY: Recalls Helen's Country Harvest Brand Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            May 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Helen's Country Harvest
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8052

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name       Size      Code(s) on product
----------   -----------       ----      ------------------
Helen's      Pickled Sausage   Various   All packages where
Country                                  mustard is not declared
Harvest                                  in the list of
                                          ingredients on the
UPC: None                                label.
Additional information: None

Helen's      Hot Salsa Sauce   500 mL    All packages where
Country                                  mustard is not declared
Harvest                                  in the list of
                                          ingredients on the
UPC: None                                label.
Additional information: Class 3 to Retail

Helen's      Bread and Butter  Various   All packages where
Country      Pickles                     mustard is not declared
Harvest                                  in the list of
                                          ingredients on the
UPC: None                                label.
Additional information: Class 3 to Retail

Helen's      Pickled Eggs      Various   All packages where
Country                                  mustard is not declared
Harvest                                  in the list of
                                          ingredients on the
UPC: None                                label.
Additional information: Class 3 to Retail

Helen's      Sugar-Free        Various   All packages where
Country      Chili Sauce                 mustard is not declared
Harvest                                  in the list of
                                          ingredients on the
UPC: None                                label.
Additional information: Class 3 to Retail


HEWLETT PACKARD: Center for Class Action Fairness Balks at Coupons
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to PointofLaw.com's Ted Frank, one of the targets of the
Class Action Fairness Act was coupon settlements, the problematic
class-action settlement device where the attorneys would receive
millions, and the class members would receive coupons of little or
no value that were often indistinguishable from what the defendant
would use to market itself to non-class members anyway.  Under 28
U.S.C Sec. 1712(a), if a court is to value coupons in a coupon
settlement, it has to use the value of the "redeemed" coupons, not
some hypothetical valuation.

The coupons issued by HP in the HP Inkjet Litigation case were
especially appalling: a few dollars only good at HP.com, and not
stackable with other coupons.  HP looked to make money on the
coupons, because they would receive full retail price (minus a few
dollars) for things like paper and ink cartridges instead of
wholesale price if consumers purchased the goods (often at lower
prices) at Staples or Amazon.  The Center for Class Action
Fairness objected to a settlement that looked to pay the attorneys
$2.9 million, but the class only worthless coupons.  The district
court approved the settlement, while reducing the Rule 23(h) award
to $2.1 million, even though class members only claimed about 30%
of the coupons available: the $800,000 and remainder of the coupon
"fund" reverted to HP.  The Center appealed the district court's
failure to follow Sec. 1712(a).  As Larry Schonbrun recently
complained in the American Thinker, many courts had been evading
CAFA's requirement by looking at a provision that permitted the
use of lodestar for non-coupon relief.

In a split 2-1 decision that was the first published appellate
decision to interpret Section 1712, the Ninth Circuit agreed.  The
Center was especially pleased by the following language endorsing
a principle that has motivated many Center objections:

Of course, one might argue that the fees award in this
hypothetical case is "attributable to" the work of class counsel
on the action, rather than the coupons.  But one would be
mistaken.  Attorney's fees are never "attributable to" an
attorney's work on the action.  They are "attributable to" the
relief obtained for the class.  See Class Plaintiffs v. Jaffe &
Schlesinger, P.A., 19 F.3d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1994).  An
attorney who works incredibly hard, but obtains nothing for the
class, is not entitled to fees calculated by any method.

For although class counsel's hard work on an action is presumably
a necessary condition to obtaining attorney's fees, it is never a
sufficient condition.  Plaintiffs attorneys don't get paid simply
for working; they get paid for obtaining results.  Because it is
the class relief that is both a necessary and a sufficient
condition to an award of attorney's fees, it follows that an
attorney's fees award can only be "attributable to," or the
consequence of, the class relief, not the attorney's hard work.

The dissent, however, which was willing to read the "redeemed"
requirement right out of the statute, and affirm a settlement
approval where the attorneys recovered more than even the face
value of the coupons, shows how difficult it is to legislate
reform.

A big victory for the Center, its third appellate victory this
year. (The Center is not affiliated with the Manhattan Institute.)


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc., is facing two securities class
action lawsuits in New York, 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 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation").  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

   * the Company's failure to properly account for the 2009 risk
     sharing agreement ("RSA") and PEAKS Private Student Loan
     Program ("PEAKS Program");

   * the Company's failure to maintain proper internal controls to
     ensure that risk-sharing agreements were properly recorded;

   * making false statements or failing to disclose adverse facts
     known about the Company;

   * deceiving the investing public regarding the Company's
     prospects and business;

   * artificially inflating the price of the Company's common
     stock; and

   * causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to
     purchase the Company's common stock at inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 20, 2010,
through February 23, 2013.  The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, and an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and
attorney's fees.  All of the defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.

On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services,
Inc., et al. (the "MLAF Litigation").  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by:

   * the Company's failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA,
     2009 RSA and PEAKS Program;

   * the Company's failure to establish adequate reserves
     associated with its guarantee obligations under the 2007 RSA,
     2009 RSA and PEAKS Program, which caused the Company to
     misrepresent its earnings, liabilities, net income and
     financial condition throughout the putative class period;

   * making false and misleading statements;

   * engaging in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of
     conduct that artificially inflated the price of the Company's
     common stock;

   * operating as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
     common stock by misrepresenting its liabilities related to
     the 2007 RSA, 2009 RSA and PEAKS Program, financial results
     and business prospects;

   * artificially inflating the price of the Company's common
     stock; and

   * causing the putative class members to purchase the Company's
     common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008,
through February 25, 2013.  The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, and an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees and equitable/injunctive or other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.  All of the defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.

There can be no assurance that the ultimate outcome of the Koetsch
Litigation, the MLAF Litigation or other actions (including other
actions under federal or state securities laws) will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

The current officers named in the Koetsch Litigation and the MLAF
Litigation include Daniel M. Fitzpatrick and Kevin M. Modany.

Certain of the Company's current and former officers and Directors
are or may become a party in the actions.  The Company's By-laws
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation obligate the Company to
indemnify its officers and Directors to the fullest extent
permitted by Delaware law, provided that their conduct complied
with certain requirements.  The Company is obligated to advance
defense costs to its officers and Directors, subject to the
individual's obligation to repay such amount if it is ultimately
determined that the individual was not entitled to
indemnification.  In addition, the Company's indemnity obligation
can, under certain circumstances, include indemnifiable judgments,
penalties, fines and amounts paid in settlement in connection with
those actions.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
is a proprietary provider of postsecondary degree programs in the
United States.  The Company offers master, bachelor and associate
degree programs to approximately 61,000 students at ITT Technical
Institute and Daniel Webster College locations.  The Company also
offers one or more of its online programs to students, who are
located in 48 states.


J.L. TRADING: Recalls Tunnel Farm and Lucky Brand Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            May 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           J. L. Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8033

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name    Size    Code(s) on product
----------   -----------    ----    ------------------
Lucky        Sweet Potato   170 g   All packages where sulphites
              Slice                  are not declared in the
                                     ingredient listing on the
UPC: 6 932692 209116                label.


Tunnel Farm  Rock Candy     118 g   All packages where sulphites
              Waxberry               are not declared in the
                                     ingredient listing on the
UPC: 6 920404 379011                label.

Tunnel Farm  Coreless Olive 145 g   All packages where sulphites
                                     are not declared in the
UPC: 6 920404 379516                ingredient listing on the
                                     label.


J.B. HUNT: Bid to Stay Proceedings in California Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.'s motion to stay proceedings in
the class action lawsuit pending 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.

The Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers, who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other items.  During the first quarter
of 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings pending a
decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an unrelated
case, but with similar issues and are awaiting a ruling.  The
Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits.

Lowell, Arkansas-based J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. --
http://www.jbhunt.com/-- is one of the largest surface
transportation, delivery and logistics companies in North America.
The Company provides transportation and delivery services to a
diverse group of customers and consumers throughout the
continental United States, Canada and Mexico.


LULULEMON: Recalled Luon Black Yoga Pants Back Into Stores
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Lululemon is starting to get its
Luon black yoga pants, which were pulled in March for being too
sheer, back into its stores.

That bodes well for the company, analysts said on June 3.  And the
see-through snafu didn't affect Lululemon's brand too much, says
Canaccord's Camilo Lyon.

Lululemon Athletica Inc. had blamed the sheerness on a style
change and production problems.  It hired a new team to oversee
the making of the pants, which cost about $72 to $98.  The company
has said it expects to lose $57 million to $67 million in revenue
because of the pants problem.

But that hasn't mattered much to its stock.  Since the company
announced it was pulling the pants off shelves, its shares had
gained 18%.  The stock added another $1.48, or 1.9%, to $79.29 on
June 3.

The company said on June 3 that it will be steadily increasing the
stock of Luon pants throughout June.  The "inkwell Wunder Under"
yoga pants were available on June 3 on the company's website, and
checks by Wedbush analysts found the black "Groove" and "Astro"
pants in stores across the country over the weekend.

Wedbush said its research indicated that "customers were please(d)
with the opacity of the pants" and that demand for them means more
people went to Lululemon stores in the past few days.

The see-through pants won't leave lasting damage on Lululemon's
brand, said Canaccord Genuity analyst Camilo Lyon, and the current
quarter will get a sales boost from pent-up demand for the pants.


MONSANTO CO: Obtains Favorable Ruling From Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------
According to Indybay's Stephen Lendman, it's no surprise.  Michael
Parenti calls America's High Court its "autocratic branch."

It's notoriously pro-business.  It's longstanding.  In Santa Clara
County v. Southern Pacific Railway (1886), it granted corporations
legal personhood.

More recently, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al (June
2011), it denied longstanding sexual discrimination class action
redress.  It overruled a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision
doing so.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (April 2011), it did so two months
earlier.  It blocked class action redress claiming fraud.  The
company's wireless subsidiary charged sales tax on cellphones it
advertised as free.  Two California courts rules for plaintiffs.
The High Court overruled them.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme
Court ruled for money power over democratic governance.  One
dollar = one vote.

Corporations and PACs can spend all they want. Doing so more than
ever lets them control US elections.  Voters are effectively
disenfranchised.  They have no say whatever.

Numerous other rulings show America's High Court is supremely pro-
business.  The Roberts Court is more so than previous ones.  Even
The New York Times noticed.

On May 4, it headlined "Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme
Court."  It rejected an anti-trust class action suit against
Comcast.  Subscribers sought to prove unfair competition and
overcharges.  Wrongdoing was dismissed 5 - 4.  It didn't surprise.
It's consistently pro-business.  Doing so facilitates corporate
empowerment, discriminatory practices, willful fraud, and products
harming human health.

Bowman v. Monsanto again showed where America's High Court stands.
Justice again was denied.  Corporate interests alone matter.  In
2007, Monsanto sued Vernon Bowman.  He's an Indiana farmer.  At
issue was alleged patent infringement.

He bought mixed soybean seeds. He did so from a grain elevator. He
planted them a second time.  He supplemented them with soybeans
bought from the same source.

Monsanto's licensing agreement forbids second plantings.  It wants
seeds sold used only once.  It wants farmers to pay each time they
plant.

Bowman claimed no patent infringement.  It expired on what he
first bought. He supplemented with commodity soybeans.  They're
usually used for feed.

He said they naturally "self-replicate or sprout unless stored in
a controlled manner." In other words, he planted soybeans, not new
seeds. He violated no law.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court opinion.  She didn't
surprise.  She and other justices spurn judicial fairness.  They
do so in defense of privilege.  She rejected what she called "that
blame-the-bean defense."

Bowman had no chance. He was no match against Monsanto.  He was
ordered to pay nearly $85,000 in damages.  He's a small farmer.
Doing so may bankrupt him.  Longstanding agribusiness plans call
for greater consolidation at the expense of small competitors.

Bowman lost at the district, appellate and High Court levels.
They ruled one way.  They claimed patent exhaustion doesn't permit
farmers to replant seeds and harvest them without patent holder's
permission.

Generic drug companies freely do it.  The Drug Price Competition
and Patent Term Restoration Act permits it.  Once patents expire,
holders no longer have exclusive rights.

In 2014, the last of Monsanto's Roundup Ready US patents will
expire. Monsanto's supposed to lose exclusivity.  At issue is will
or won't it happen?

Expect Monsanto to press hard to keep it.  Earlier it said it
wants international regulatory Roundup Ready soybeans support
until 2021.  It's unclear if other companies will be able to sell
generic versions.  Monsanto won't make it easy to do so.

On May 13, Food Democracy Now (FDN) denounced the Supreme Court
ruling.  Executive director Dave Murphy accused Washington of
complicity in permitting the "corporate takeover of (America's)
food supply."

"Today," he said, "the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the
corporate takeover of our food supply, in a huge win for Monsanto,
and a major loss for America's farmers and consumers."

"Monsanto has long engaged in an effort to subvert family farmers
that do not use their genetically-engineered seeds, and the Court
has now handed corporations even more control over what our
families eat."

"Currently, Food Democracy Now! is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit in
the District Court of Appeals, Organic Seed Associations et Al. v
Monsanto to protect America's farmers from unwanted contamination
of their crops by Monsanto's patented genetically-engineered
plants."

"Our nation's family farmers grow our food on farms where cross-
pollination between organic, non-GMO crops and Monsanto's
genetically-engineered patented crops is regular and naturally-
occurring process."

"The Court's decision to give Monsanto the power to control the
future harvest of America's family farmers and our county's food
supply is deeply troubling, immoral and a very bad sign for the
future of our nation's food."

In March 2013, Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act. It's the
Farmer Assurance Provision rider in HR 933: Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.  Monsanto lawyers
wrote it.

It permits circumventing judicial decisions.  If courts rule GMOs
unsafe, Monsanto's free to ignore them.  So can the Secretary of
Agriculture.

He's free to ignore food safety.  He can let hazardous GMOs poison
America's food supply.  Obama's complicit with giant corporate
interests.  He's their man in Washington.  He's beholden to monied
interests.  They own him.

He's waging global hot wars.  He's enforcing homeland tyranny.  He
lets Wall Street wage financial wars.  He permits
institutionalized fraud.  He let BP get away with contaminating
America's Gulf.

He has longstanding nuclear industry ties.  He wants new US
commercial reactor construction jump-started.  He's committing
billions of dollars in loan guarantees to do so.  He's mindless of
the risks.

He's waging war on human health and welfare. Polls show over 90%
of America want GMO products and ingredients labeled.

In 2007, candidate Obama promised to "let folks know when their
food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to
know what they're buying."

He lied.  He's a serial liar. He broke every major promise made.
He supports Monsanto's right to proliferate what harms human
health.

It's no surprise. He's waging global wars on humanity.  It may not
survive his onslaught.

A Final Comment

Throughout its history, Monsanto produced harmful products.  Some
eventually were banned. Its recombinant bovine growth hormone
(rBGH) increased milk production in cows.

It caused painful mastitis, infections and reproductive problems.
Large amounts of puss and blood were found in rBGH milk.
Potential linkage to cancer was discovered.

EU nations and Canada banned it.  It's still sold in America.
Monsanto lobby power permits it.

Monsanto's polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) was extremely toxic.  It
caused cancer and other diseases.  Many products contained it.  It
was dumped in rivers and streams nationwide.

Harmful environmental damage followed. Concentrated areas created
health crises. In 1976, Congress banned it.

Monsanto's DDT inspired Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring."
She exposed aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, and other dangerously
toxic chemicals She inspired environmental justice advocacy
groups.

America banned DDT.  So did other countries.  It's still used in
tropical countries.  It's done to control malaria.

Monsanto's legacy includes Agent Orange. It contains dioxin.  It's
one of the most deadly substances known.  It's a potent
carcinogenic human immune system suppressant.

Minute amounts cause serious health problems and death.  Exposure
results in congenital disorders and birth defects.

It causes cancer, type two diabetes, and numerous other diseases.
Its widespread Southeast Asian use produced horrific consequences.
Millions were affected.  Many died.  Living victims still suffer.
Many Vietnam vets and US citizens in theater were affected.

Proliferating hazardous GMOs may be worst of all. Widespread food
contamination poses enormous threats. Sanctioning Monsanto's use
makes Washington complicit.

People have a right to know what they're eating. Failure to
prohibit substances harming human health violates the
Constitution's "general welfare" clause.  Article I, Section 8
states:

"The Congress shall have power to . . . provide for (the) general
welfare of the United States."

It means "We the People."  It includes everyone equitably.  It
means what never was, isn't now, or won't ever be under a system
favoring privilege, not fairness.

Washington's corporate occupied territory.  Profits matter more
than human life and welfare.  Bipartisan complicity ignores the
"general welfare."  Things go from bad to worse. It's
longstanding.  It's the American way.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: "Miller" Suit Settlement to Be Filed Soon
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., expects that a motion for court approval
of its settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Gaylord
L. Miller will be filed in the near future, 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 30,
2013.

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by
Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against
Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded) in March 2012 under nuisance,
negligence, and gross negligence theories.  It is brought on
behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose
property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout
and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to
Extruded's operations.  The Plaintiffs allege that they have
suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their
properties.  They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief.  The court has not yet been asked to certify a
class.  The Company has reached a settlement in principle that, if
approved by the court, will result in the dismissal of the action.
The Company and Plaintiffs are preparing documents that will
embody the settlement.  It is expected that the Plaintiffs will
file a motion for court approval of the settlement in the near
future.  Should the settlement not be consummated or approved, the
Company will complete its discovery, oppose the Plaintiffs'
expected class certification motion, and seek dismissal of
Plaintiffs' claims.  Until the settlement is consummated and
approved, or until the court rules on key motions (should the
settlement not be consummated or approved), the Company is unable
to determine the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Memphis, Tennessee-based Mueller Industries, Inc. --
http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar and shapes; aluminum and
brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic
fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; and
fabricated tubular products.  Mueller's operations are located
throughout the United States and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
and China.


NEW YORK, NY: Judge Expresses Interest in Wearable Police Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Vaughan, writing for Reuters, reports that the federal
judge who will rule in a class-action lawsuit accusing New York
City police of racial profiling in their "stop and frisk" crime-
fighting tactic expressed interest in having police officers wear
cameras as the trial concluded on May 20.

"Everybody would know exactly what occurred" in a given stop, U.S.
District Judge Shira Scheindlin said toward the end of closing
arguments in the trial, which lasted more than nine weeks and
produced an 8,000-page record.

The judge was referring to an expert witness for the city who
testified recently about other cities trying wearable cameras.

"I'm intrigued by it," Judge Scheindlin said.

Several other lawsuits have challenged stop and frisk, in which
New York City police stop people they suspect of unlawful activity
and frisk those they suspect are carrying weapons.

With closing arguments finished, Judge Scheindlin is now set to
rule on a lawsuit that is considered the broadest legal challenge
yet.

The four black and Hispanic men who filed the lawsuit in 2008,
including medical student David Floyd, claim police improperly
targeted them because of their races.  The suit also says it
violates the right against unreasonable searches.

The plaintiffs, some of whom attended the May 20 arguments, want
the New York Police Department to reform its training of officers
and its supervision of the practice.  They also want the court to
appoint an outside monitor to oversee the police department's
compliance with any remedies Judge Scheindlin orders.

Advocates of stop and frisk, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
say the police practices have helped to reduce crime.

The plaintiffs "failed to show a single constitutional violation"
let alone a widespread practice of racial profiling in the 19
stops described by 12 witnesses they presented during the trial,
Heidi Grossman, a lawyer for the city, said on May 20.

Jonathan Moore, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, took issue on
May 20 with a recent speech to the NYPD in which Bloomberg
defended stop and frisk in part by saying police need to be "first
preventers."

"That's a very dangerous notion to instruct your police,"
Mr. Moore said.  "What are the constitutional limits to being a
'first preventer?'"

In January, Judge Scheindlin ordered certain stop and frisk
searches in the Bronx halted because they violated the
Constitution.  She later lifted that order, saying it could impose
"significant burdens" on the police.

During the May 20 closing arguments, Judge Scheindlin said she was
troubled by statistics showing that the suspicion of criminal
behavior in 90% of the stops turned out to be unfounded.

"That's a lot of misjudgment of suspicion," Judge Scheindlin said.

Judge Scheindlin did not say whether she would seriously consider
ordering the police department to use wearable cameras if she
rules against the city.

Cities with police departments that have used wearable cameras or
are considering them include Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco,
Seattle and Phoenix, among others, according to an October 2012
review of shootings involving Las Vegas police officers by non-
profit research organization CNA.

Though plaintiffs have not pushed for wearable cameras, Moore, the
lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said they would "definitely
consider" it.

The case is David Floyd et al v. The City of New York, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-1034.

                         Closing Arguments

According to CNN's Laura Ly, a trial examining the New York Police
Department's stop-and-frisk policy headed to a judge on May 20
after attorneys delivered their closing arguments after nine weeks
of testimony.

The federal class-action lawsuit claims that police officers
routinely stop minority men, particularly black and Latino men,
without legal reasons.  The police department says that the policy
-- in which police stop, question and frisk people they consider
suspicious -- is used to deter crime.  The practice has been
widely criticized.

The lead plaintiff in the case is David Floyd, a medical student
who was stopped twice, once in the middle of the afternoon when he
was in front of his home in the Bronx, according to the suit,
which was filed in 2008.

Closing arguments on May 20 were marked by conflicting accounts of
stop-and-frisk incidents.

For example, while attorneys for the City of New York argued that
one man was stopped because he appeared to be smoking marijuana,
the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that he was simply talking on a
cell phone.  The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit
civil rights law practice, is arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Another man was reportedly stopped because he fit the description
of a wanted man in a high-crime area with a recent string of
burglaries, but the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that he was more
than a mile from where the burglaries occurred and that the last
burglary in that area occurred more than 25 days earlier.

Additionally, while city attorneys argued that many of those
patted down gave their consent to the officers, the plaintiffs'
lawyers countered by saying that none of the 12 witnesses who were
stopped ever felt free to leave.  Both sides argued that the
accounts of events had changed since depositions were first taken.

The nine weeks of testimony included secret recordings from
officers; statements from 41 police officials and 12 witnesses;
and expert opinions from criminal investigators.  Testimonies
included emotional accounts from men who say police stopped them
for no reason and from police officers who say quotas forced them
to make unnecessary stops.

In the recordings, which were played in court by the plaintiffs'
lawyers, supervising officers can be heard saying they want "more
250s," referring to the form that officers fill out when they
conduct a stop, question and frisk.

City attorneys say that officers operate within the law, going
where the crime is, and that crime happens to be higher in
minority neighborhoods.  During closing arguments, they contended
that 88% of stops are justified and that there have been no
legitimate indications of racial motivations.

They argued that the plaintiffs' accounts of stop-and-frisk
incidents were "woefully lacking in substantive evidence" and
"failed to show a single constitutional violation."  Rather than
quotas, the attorneys claimed, the department used performance
goals, which are legitimate management tools.

"We need to have performance goals to keep the city safe," said
city attorney Heidi Grossman.

Though 12 witnesses testified regarding a total of 19 stop-and-
frisk incidents, city attorneys pointed out that in seven of the
19 stops, the officers could not be identified.


PRIME FOOD: Recalls Latis Seafood Products Due to Listeria Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Food USA at 50th & 1st Ave. Building # 57, in Brooklyn New
York 11232, is recalling Latis Brand Seafood Products due to
confirmed and suspected contamination with listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria can cause serious complications for pregnant women, such
as stillbirth.  Other problems can manifest in people with
compromised immune systems.  Listeria can also cause serious flu-
like symptoms in healthy individuals.

The recalled Latis Brand Seafood products are packaged in various
sizes plastic oval type containers.  All container sizes are
affected.  The UPC numbers for the products begin with 75100407.
The product was sold nationwide.  They are products of Latvia.
Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm355284.htm

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the products by Food Laboratory personnel
found various products to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have purchased Latis Brand Seafood
Products should not consume them, but should return them to the
place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the
Company at 718-439-0376.


RAMBUS INC: Class Suits Alleging Securities Fraud Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits alleging securities fraud remain pending,
according to Rambus Inc.'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 enters into standard license agreements in the
ordinary course of business.  Although the Company does not
indemnify most of its customers, there are times when an
indemnification is a necessary means of doing business.
Indemnification covers customers for losses suffered or incurred
by them as a result of any patent, copyright, or other
intellectual property infringement or any other claim by any third
party arising as result of the applicable agreement with the
Company.  The maximum amount of indemnification the Company could
be required to make under these agreements is generally limited to
fees received by the Company.

Several securities fraud class actions, private lawsuits and
shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal
courts against certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors related to the stock option granting
actions.  As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has
agreements whereby its officers and directors are indemnified for
certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or
was serving, at the Company's request in such capacity.  The term
of the indemnification period is for the officer's or director's
term in such capacity.  The maximum potential amount of future
payments the Company could be required to make under these
indemnification agreements is unlimited.  The Company has a
director and officer insurance policy that reduces the Company's
exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of future
amounts to be paid.  As a result of these indemnification
agreements, the Company continues to make payments on behalf of
primarily former officers and some current officers.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company had made cumulative payments of
approximately $32.2 million on their behalf, including $17,000 in
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.  As of March 31, 2012, the
Company had made cumulative payments of approximately $31.9
million on their behalf, including $30,000 in the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.  These payments were recorded under costs of
restatement and related legal activities in the condensed
consolidated statements of operations.

Sunnyvale, California-based Rambus Inc. -- http://www.rambus.com/
-- was founded in 1990 and reincorporated in Delaware in March
1997.  The Company is an innovative technology solutions company
that brings invention to market.


REHOBOTH BEACH, DE: To Vigorously Defend Scooter Parking Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mavity, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that Rehoboth
Beach Mayor Sam Cooper said the city would vigorously defend a
federal class-action lawsuit over a new $40 scooter parking permit
fee.

Rehoboth resident Lawrence Myslewski, 2 Dover St., filed suit
May 20 in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging the new
scooter permits violate the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment because residents have to pay for a scooter parking
permit, but not for car or motorcycle permits.

Mr. Myslewski, who owns two Vespa scooters, said in the suit that
he couldn't park his scooter in front of his home without paying
for a permit.  His attorney, David Finger, said the scooter
ordinance does not treat all motorists equally.

The suit calls the ordinance discriminatory and fails to achieve
its stated goal of safe and effective scooter parking.  The suit
also says the ordinance does not prevent scooters from riding or
parking on sidewalks, which is already prohibited in the city
code.

"There is no basis to conclude that use of motor scooters results
in any greater threat to public safety than any other form of
motorized transportation such that different treatment is
required," the suit says.

Mr. Cooper said parking meters are not free to residents who go
into the downtown commercial zone.  He said while he would have
liked to have an ordinance that closer resembles the city's policy
on cars, the commissioners tried to make the regulations as simple
as possible and to avoid having multiple types of scooter parking
permits.

The driving force behind the ordinance, Mr. Cooper said, was to
get scooters off the sidewalks, where they had been parking at and
around the bike racks.

"It's pretty clear that scooters are a motor vehicle.  Why were
they allowed to park on the sidewalk?" he said.

If the city was going to ban scooters from parking on sidewalks,
the commissioners wanted to find them a place to park, Mr. Cooper
said, since the use of scooters in Rehoboth has substantially
grown over time.  The commissioners decided to create scooter
parking corrals around the city, mostly in the beach block street
ends, but with some in the commercial areas, by taking away car
parking spaces and converting them to scooter parking.  In order
to make up for the lost revenue, Cooper said, the commissioners
instituted the $40 permit.

Mr. Finger is asking the ordinance be declared unconstitutional
and for judgment including costs and attorneys fees.  He does not
yet know how big the class is, because the suit was just filed.
Mr. Finger said he has no timetable on when the case would be
heard.


SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE: Hillsborough Survivors Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rumsby, writing for The Telegraph, reports that survivors of
the Hillsborough disaster have begun suing police for injuries
they suffered during the crush that killed 96 people, it emerged.

Some of the remaining 766 hurt in Britain's worst sporting tragedy
have lodged personal injury claims against South Yorkshire Police
following last year's report by the Hillsborough Independent
Panel, which confirmed spectators were not to blame for the events
of April 15, 1989.

The panel exposed a police campaign to smear Liverpool supporters,
which deterred several people taking legal action at the time.

But the panel's report and the resulting formation of fresh
inquests into the deaths of those killed at Hillsborough has
prompted more than one survivor to consult specialist lawyers.

David Greene, partner at class-action firm Edwin Coe LLP, said:
"We have started and served proceedings on South Yorkshire Police.
They deny liability, suggesting claims are time barred.  It would
be a disgrace for the police however to rely on their conduct of
vilification to suggest the victims of that vilification have no
claim any more."

Personal-injury claims usually must be lodged within three years
and Greene added: "Many people took no action following the
disastrous event in April 1989 because they felt vilified by the
statements of the police and press.

"It is only following the result of the Hillsborough Independent
Panel inquiry that they have felt the veil of vilification lifting
from them.

"This has allowed them to look again at what happened and how it
has affected them since."

South Yorkshire Police did not respond to requests for comment
before publication.

News of the legal action came on the day the BBC's Panorama
program broadcast new claims about the conduct of senior officers
in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster, including Sir Norman
Bettison.

Retired former Merseyside chief constable Mr. Bettison was a chief
inspector in Yorkshire in April 1989 and one of his officers,
Clive Davis, detailed a briefing both men attended on the Sunday
after the tragedy.

Mr. Davis said: "I was working with a senior officer at that time,
it was chief inspector Norman Bettison.  He said he was keen for
us to go to a briefing.

"'This is an opportunity for us to get ourselves recognized',
those were his words to me."

Mr. Davis told Panorama it was agreed at that meeting that the
police strategy was to ensure blame was placed on "drunken
ticketless Liverpool supporters".

South Yorkshire Police said they were not in a position to comment
because of the ongoing judicial processes and the IPCC
investigation.  In a statement, the force said: it "continues to
cooperate fully with all judicial processes following the release
of the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report and online archive
in September 2012.  The Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC) is investigating the actions of the police in the aftermath
of the Hillsborough Disaster on 15 April 1989".


SP AUSNET: Power Line Maintenance Records Lacking, Engineer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Lee, writing for The Border Mail, reports that a former SP
AusNet engineer says that in the lead-up to Black Saturday, the
company did not keep records about power poles and lines he
considered "imperative" to deciding how maintenance should be
performed.

Anthony Walley had been a senior lines engineer for the
electricity company for about three months in 2009 when a fire
sparked by one of its lines claimed 119 lives.

About 10,000 people affected by the Kilmore East fire are suing SP
AusNet in the state's largest civil class action.  One of their
lawyers' key arguments is that the fire could have been prevented
had SP AusNet performed simple safety inspections and replaced or
serviced the 43-year-old power line years before 2009.

Mr. Walley, who now runs a business called Absolute Asset
Maintenance, told the Supreme Court on May 20 the only maintenance
records for the poles were of a repair job in 2003 and a test
performed in 2008.

The company did not keep records of maintenance performed on power
poles and lines from before 1999 and the range and access to data
was limited, he said.

"It's imperative because if you want to know (an asset's) future
performance you have to look at its previous history," he said.

Mr. Walley researched the power lines to draft a letter on behalf
of SP AusNet in response to questions from Energy Safe Victoria
during its investigation after the fire.

"My views stayed the same (months later). Records that were kept
were not as complete as they could have been and some areas were
lacking," Mr. Walley said.

He later visited the power line a number of times and took part of
it from the site.  He said it was rust-colored and had lost much
of its coating.

The claimants' lawyers also argue that vibration dampers should
have been fitted to the power line, which they say would have
extended its life significantly.

Mr. Walley said this would have influenced what happened to the
line: "If you fitted a vibration damper it would have reduced the
crack propagation and it would potentially add to the life of the
conductor."

On the way back from an inspection after Black Saturday he asked
Ross Clark -- a member of the company's legal response team who
helped him draft correspondence with Energy Safe Victoria -- why
the dampers had not been fitted.  "He said not to worry about it,"
Mr. Walley said.

An SP AusNet spokesman said the company's evidence showed its
practices "complied with regulatory and safety obligations, and
endorsement from the regulators prior to Black Saturday is
consistent with this view . . . We are confident our decision to
vigorously defend the claims against the company will be well and
truly justified."

The case continues.


TEREX CORP: Still Awaits Rulings on Bid to Dismiss Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation is still awaiting court decisions on its motions
to dismiss two consolidated class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in a lawsuit filed under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), a securities lawsuit and a
stockholder derivative lawsuit:

   * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
     the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     September 20, 2010, and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
     Litigation.

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
     securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the
     United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     November 18, 2010, and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local
     32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension
     Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
     Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary
     duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was
     filed on April 12, 2010, in the United States District Court,
     District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer,
     derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M.
     DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris
     Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike,
     Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
     Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and
     Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors.  The
complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company is unable
to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these
lawsuits.  The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks
amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in
addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual
defendants in its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are
without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives
will continue to vigorously defend against them.  The Company
believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance
with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters.  Accordingly, on November 19, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit.  These
motions are currently pending before the court.  The plaintiff in
the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to
put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to
dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit.

Terex Corporation is a lifting and material handling solutions
company.  The Westport, Connecticut-based Company is focused on
operational improvement and delivering reliable, customer-driven
solutions for a wide range of commercial applications, including
the construction, infrastructure, quarrying, mining,
manufacturing, transportation, energy and utility industries.


TEXAS BRINE: Court Approves Class Action Over Louisiana Sinkhole
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAFB reports that a federal court has approved a class-action
lawsuit for people impacted by the giant Louisiana sinkhole.

It's been almost a year since a massive sinkhole near Bayou Corne
and Grand Bayou began causing problems.  Bubbling in the bayou led
to the now 15-acre sinkhole.  About 350 people have been forced
out of their homes since August.

A New Orleans attorney is handling the class-action suit.  There
has not been a response from Texas Brine about the lawsuit.

It has been nine months since hundreds living near the giant
sinkhole were forced from their homes.

Bubbles were spotted in Bayou Corne and Grand Bayou in June 2012.
Two months later, the ground opened up and left a nine-acre
sinkhole.  Residents were evacuated and have been for the past
seven months.  Most affected residents began receiving weekly
checks from Texas-Brine in the amount of $875 per week.

On March 13, Texas-Brine, the Houston based company that owns the
salt dome that caused the sinkhole, announced it would begin
assessing the homes and offering buyouts and settlements for the
350 people evacuated.

To date, no buyouts have been offered.  As of May 16, Texas Brine
has indicated that 110 residents have requested settlement forms;
102 residents have submitted claim information sheets; 97
properties have been inspected; and five properties remain to be
inspected.

Texas Brine had committed to issuing settlement offers within 45
days of property inspections.  As of May 20, 66 inspected
properties had reached the 45-day window.  On May 24, 85
properties will be on the 45th day since inspection and 87
properties will be on the 45th day since inspection on May 31.

Sonny Cranch, the spokesman for Texas Brine, said the company
found out in the eleventh hour its insurance carriers were not in
support of the buyout process.


TOWNSEND FARMS: FDA Probes Berry Mix-Linked Hepatitis A Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Clare Jalonick, Dan Elliot and Catherine Tsai and Nigel
Duara, writing for The Associated Press, report that the Food and
Drug Administration is investigating an outbreak of hepatitis A
linked to a frozen organic berry mix sold by an Oregon company.

The FDA and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
said on May 31 that 30 illnesses are linked to Townsend Farms
Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend, which contains pomegranate seed mix.
Illnesses were reported in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona
and California.

Several of those who fell ill reported buying the berry mix at
Costco, according to CDC.  A Costco spokesman said on May 31 that
the company has removed the product from stores and is attempting
to contact members who purchased the product in recent months.

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease that can last from a few
weeks to a several months.  People often contract it when an
infected food handler prepares food without appropriate hand
hygiene. Food already contaminated with the virus can also cause
outbreaks.

The government has not announced a recall, but the CDC recommended
that retailers and other food service operators should not sell or
serve Townsend Farms Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend.

The FDA said it is inspecting the processing facilities of
Townsend Farms of Fairview, Ore., which sold the mix.  The CDC
said the strain of hepatitis is rarely seen in North or South
America but is found in the North Africa and Middle East regions.

Garr said the frozen organic blend bag includes pomegranate seeds
from Turkey, and are only used in the product associated with the
outbreak.

"We do have very good records, we know where the (pomegranate
seeds) came from, we're looking into who the broker is and we're
sourcing it back up the food chain to get to it," Mr. Garr said.

He said Townsend Farms believes Costco is the only customer who
bought the product, though they are checking to see if any other
retailers may have sold it.

Hepatitis A illnesses occur within 15 to 50 days of exposure to
the virus. Symptoms include fatigue, abdominal pain, jaundice,
abnormal liver tests, dark urine and pale stool.

Vaccination can prevent illness if given within two weeks of
exposure, and those who have already been vaccinated are unlikely
to become ill, according to CDC.

CDC said all of the victims are older than 18, ranging from 25 to
71 years old.  The first illnesses were reported at the end of
April.

The same genotype of hepatitis A was identified in an outbreak in
Europe linked to frozen berries this year, the CDC said, as well
as a 2012 outbreak in British Columbia related to a frozen berry
blend with pomegranate seeds from Egypt.  In addition to the
United States and Turkey, the agency said the Townsend Farms
berries also included products from Argentina and Chile.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Recalls Frozen Organic Antioxidant Blend Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Townsend Farms, Inc. of Fairview, Oregon, has announced that it is
voluntarily recalling certain lots of its frozen Organic
Antioxidant Blend, out of an abundance of caution, because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Hepatitis A virus, based on
an ongoing epidemiological and traceback investigation by the FDA
and the CDC of an illness outbreak.  No other Townsend Farms
products, frozen or fresh, are covered by this voluntary recall or
linked to the illness outbreak at this time.  This release
confirms the correct Lot codes for Harris Teeter Products.

The product was sold at Costco warehouse stores under the product
name Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend, 3 lb. bag and UPC 0
78414 404448.  The recalled codes are located on the back of the
package with the words "BEST BY"; followed by the code T012415
sequentially through T053115, followed by a letter.  All of these
letter designations are included in this recall for the lot codes
listed above.

The product was also sold at Harris Teeter stores from April 19
until May 7, 2013, under the product name Harris Teeter Organic
Antioxidant Berry Blend, 10 oz. bag UPC 0 72036 70463 4. The
correct "Lot" and "best by" codes are as follows: Lot Codes
T041613E, T041613C and a "BEST BY" code of 101614.  Photos of the
packaging are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm355173.htm

Townsend Farms is implementing this voluntary recall after
learning that one of the ingredients of the frozen Organic
Antioxidant Blend, pomegranate seeds processed in Turkey, may be
linked to an illness outbreak outside of the United States.
Thirty-four cases of Hepatitis A are being investigated to date in
the U.S.; all are recovering.  At this time, Hepatitis A has not
been found in the product, but Townsend Farms is taking this
precautionary action in consultation with the FDA, as the
investigation continues.

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease that results from
exposure to the Hepatitis A virus, including from food.  It can
range from a mild illness lasting a few weeks to a serious illness
lasting several months.  Illness generally occurs within 15 to 50
days of exposure and includes fatigue, abdominal pain, jaundice,
abnormal liver tests, dark urine and pale stool.  Hepatitis A
vaccination can prevent illness if given within two weeks of
exposure to a contaminated food.  In rare cases, particularly
consumers who have a pre-existing severe illness or are immune
compromised, Hepatitis A infection can progress to liver failure.

Persons who may have consumed affected product should consult with
their health care professional or local health department to
determine if a vaccination is appropriate, and consumers with
symptoms of Hepatitis A should contact their health care
professionals or the local health department immediately.
Consumers with the product should not consume the product.  The
product should be disposed of immediately.  Please keep proof of
product purchase.

TOWNSEND FARMS INC. is committed to producing the highest quality
products, and is a certified Safety Quality Food facility.
Townsend Farms, Inc. follows industry Good Manufacturing Practices
(GMP) and sanitation procedures to ensure that its food products
are safely handled and processed.

For questions or more information, contact a Townsend Farms
Customer Service Representative by phone at 1-800-875-5291; or e-
mail townsendfarms5148@stericycle.com

Customer service representatives will be available Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time to respond to
inquiries.


ULTRATECH INC: "Rice" Class Suit in California Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
Ultratech, Inc. disclosed in its April 26, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 30, 2013, that the class action lawsuit initiated by
Dennis Rice in California is now closed.

Ultratech, Inc. was a defendant in Dennis Rice v. Ultratech, Inc.,
et al., a class action lawsuit commenced on June 14, 2012, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.  The
plaintiff alleged that the proposal in the Company's proxy seeking
approval to increase the authorized shares of common stock from 40
million to 80 million was misleading and incomplete and that the
directors violated their fiduciary duties by making these
misleading disclosures.  The plaintiff sought to enjoin the
stockholders' vote on this proposal.  On July 16, 2012, the Court
held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction and issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion.
After the plaintiff's motion for an injunction was denied, the
plaintiff amended the complaint.  On December 18, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 27, 2013, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the action.  That
dismissal disposed of the action with prejudice as to the
plaintiff and without prejudice to the uncertified class that the
plaintiff purported to represent.  Neither the plaintiff nor his
counsel received any consideration in exchange for voluntarily
dismissing the action.  The Company considers this matter closed.

Ultratech, Inc. -- http://www.ultratech.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets photolithography, laser thermal
processing, and inspection equipment designed to reduce the cost
of ownership for manufacturers of semiconductor devices, including
advanced packaging processes and various nanotechnology
components, such as thin film head magnetic recording devices,
laser diodes, high-brightness light emitting diodes and atomic
layer deposition for customers located throughout North America,
Europe, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the rest of Asia.
Ultratech was incorporated in Delaware in 1992 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


VOCCI ITALIAN: Recalls 2,025 Lbs. of Mislabeled Lasagna Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vocci Italian Food Products, a Kansas City, Missouri
establishment, is recalling approximately 2,025 pounds of lasagna
products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The
products are formulated with bread crumbs that contain egg, a
known allergen, which is not declared on the label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 5-lb. steamer tin pans of "VOCCI ITALIAN FOODS BEEF LASAGNA"
     bearing the establishment number "EST. 5789" inside the USDA
     mark of inspection on the label.

   * 20-lb. cases containing four, 5-lb. steamer tin pans of
     "VOCCI ITALIAN FOODS BEEF LASAGNA" bearing the establishment
     number "EST. 5789" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the
     label.

The products were produced on various dates between November 16,
2012, and May 8, 2013, and were sold to foodservice institutions
in the Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri,
metropolitan area.  The product is intended for use in restaurants
or institutional food operations; it is not sold in retail grocery
stores.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector who conducted a
label review prompted by the April 30, 2013 release of FSIS Notice
29-13.  FSIS took the step of issuing the notice in an effort to
protect vulnerable consumers after observing an increase in the
number of products recalled from 2008 through 2012 due to the
presence of undeclared allergens or other ingredients.  FSIS
personnel are responsible for verifying that establishments are
actively labeling the eight most common food allergens.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Chuk Lowry, a Company consumer contact, at 816-221-2026.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


WISDOMTREE INVESTMENTS: "Steinhardt" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against Occam Networks, Inc., that was
originally filed by WisdomTree Investments, Inc.'s chairman
remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2013, Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors and beneficial
owner of approximately 15.4% of the Company's common stock,
Michael Steinhardt, was the plaintiff in a civil class action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case
entitled Michael Steinhardt, Herbert Chen, Derek Sheeler,
Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C.,
v. Robert Howard-Anderson, Steven Krausz, Robert Abbott, Robert
Bylin, Thomas Pardun, Brian Strom, Albert Moyer, and Occam
Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 5878-VCL.  Occam Networks, Inc., was a
publicly traded Delaware corporation that announced on
September 16, 2010, that it had entered into merger agreement with
Calix, Inc., another publicly traded company in the
telecommunications equipment industry.  The Plaintiffs, Occam
shareholders, filed the class action challenging the merger.  As
part of these proceedings, the court entered a confidentiality
order to protect the non-public information that would be
exchanged in discovery.  This order contained both a general
requirement that non-public information produced in the action be
used solely for purposes of the litigation and a specific
restriction against purchasing, selling, or otherwise trading in
the securities of Occam or Calix on the basis of such information.

Beginning on December 28, 2010, Mr. Steinhardt began short-selling
Calix stock as a way to exit his Occam position.  The defendants
filed a motion for sanctions on the basis that Delaware law
prohibits plaintiff-fiduciaries from trading stock while they are
in possession of non-public information they obtained in
discovery.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court
granted the defendants' motion for sanctions with respect to Mr.
Steinhardt and his affiliated funds on January 6, 2012.  The court
dismissed Mr. Steinhardt and his affiliated funds from the case
with prejudice, barred them from receiving any future recovery in
the lawsuit, required them to self-report their trading activities
to the SEC and disclose it in any future application to serve as
lead plaintiff, and ordered them to disgorge profits of over
$530,000.

Mr. Steinhardt's actions did not involve the Company or trading in
the Company's securities and, based on the facts currently known,
which the Company is continuing to monitor, the Company does not
believe Mr. Steinhardt's actions have had or will have a material
impact on the Company's business.  However, there can be no
assurance that this will be the case or that this will not have an
adverse effect on the Company's reputation or the price of its
common stock.

WisdomTree Investments, Inc. -- http://ir.wisdomtree.com/-- is
the only publicly-traded asset management company that focuses
exclusively on exchange traded funds.  The Company's family of
ETFs includes both fundamentally weighted funds that track its own
indexes, and actively managed funds.


WOLTERS KLUWER: In Dispute with Plaintiffs Over Case Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that drug company
defense lawyers and plaintiffs' attorneys have long tussled over
whether personal-injury cases should be heard in state or federal
court.  Now plaintiffs' lawyers increasingly are using a
controversial tactic to try to keep their cases in state court:
suing the publishers of the information pamphlets that pharmacies
staple to prescription bags.

The notion of including the publishers as defendants started
around 2010 and has been gaining steam, according to defense and
plaintiffs' lawyers.  Not surprisingly, the two sides differ on
the legitimacy of the approach.

Defense lawyers said plaintiffs are naming as defendants
publishers such as Wolters Kluwer Health and Hearst Corp's First
Databank not because they really believe these companies are
liable for allegedly dangerous drugs, but rather because
plaintiffs' lawyers are trying to thwart efforts to litigate the
cases in federal court.

The publishers, defense lawyers said, are essentially being used
as pawns as plaintiffs seek to anchor their cases in plaintiff-
friendly state courts, including courts in Pennsylvania and
Missouri.

"It's a complete farce," said Michael Imbroscio, a lawyer at
Covington & Burling who represents drug companies in personal-
injury cases.  "I've yet to see a case where the plaintiffs have a
serious intention to pursue the monograph provider."

For their part, plaintiffs' lawyers said the real injustice is
what can happen to personal-injury torts once they are removed to
federal court, where they are often consolidated with hundreds of
similar cases as part of a multidistrict proceeding.  That can
lead to long delays.

"Multidistrict litigation can be a black hole," said David
Matthews, a personal-injury lawyer at Matthews & Associates in
Houston who has sued the medical publishers.  "Often, I represent
clients who are gravely ill and need swift justice."

While acknowledging that suing an in-state defendant may help keep
a case in state court, Matthews said the claims against the
publishers are legitimate in their own right.

The publishers "are fully aware of the adverse events and types of
problems consumers are having with drugs, and consumers rely on
this information in deciding whether to take a medication or not,"
Mr. Matthews said.

                       Pennsylvania Case

Underlying the tactic is a basic tenet of civil procedure: If the
plaintiff and defendant come from different states, defendants can
remove the case to federal court, which is usually seen as less
hospitable to personal-injury plaintiffs.  But defendants
generally lose that transfer power if one of the defendants is
based in the state where the lawsuit is filed.

Enter the publishers.

Wolters Kluwer Health, a business partner of Thomson Reuters
headquartered in Philadelphia, has routinely been included as a
defendant in cases against drug manufacturers filed in
Pennsylvania state court dating back to 2010.

Similarly, Missouri-based First Databank has been named in several
lawsuits filed in Missouri state courts accusing Pfizer unit Wyeth
of failing to warn patients about the risk of developing a
neurological disorder from its heartburn drug Reglan.

Cerner Corp, based in Missouri, has also been sued in that state,
alongside Wyeth, over alleged Reglan injuries.

Wolters Kluwer and Cerner declined to comment.  First Databank and
its lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

Lawyers for plaintiffs, drug companies and publishers said they
did not know of any cases where a publisher has actually been
found liable.  Claims against the publishers are typically
dismissed after a year, defense lawyers said, after the one-year
time limit for removing a case to federal court expires.

But while the plaintiffs may not have been able to recover damages
from a publisher for failing to warn about drug side effects, the
claims against publishers have succeeded in keeping cases in state
court.

In 2010, for example, Daniel Slater, a Wisconsin man diagnosed
with colitis after he took the acne drug Accutane, sued Wolters
Kluwer along with the drug's makers -- Hoffman-La Roche Inc and
Roche Laboratories -- in Philadelphia state court, claiming the
companies failed to warn about the risk of gastrointestinal
injuries.

The drug companies removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, noting that the plaintiff
and drugmakers were from different states; while Slater was from
Wisconsin, Hoffman-La Roche and Roche were based in New Jersey.
Pennsylvania-based Wolters Kluwer was "fraudulently joined" as
part of a "procedural gambit" to avoid federal court, the
companies argued.

U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania rejected that argument in March 2011, granting
Slater's request to send the case back to the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas, where it had originated.

To prove that the inclusion of the publisher was a so-called
"fraudulent joinder," the companies faced a high bar, Judge DuBois
said. The judge said the defendants would have to show that the
plaintiff's likelihood of recovering from Wolters Kluwer was a
"clear legal impossibility" and that the theory of liability was
"wholly insubstantial and frivolous."

                       Publishers Get Boost

Several other judges have sided with the plaintiffs in similar
cases, recognizing the significant hurdle that companies face in
proving that the inclusion of a publisher was a sham.

However, publishers did recently claim a victory.  In April, Judge
Arnold New of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas rejected the
concept of publisher liability in a case against Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals and two medical information publishers,
Excerpta Medica Inc. and Elsevier Inc.  The publishers had no duty
to warn consumers about safety risks from the antipsychotic drugs
Risperdal and Invega, New found.

Drug companies are already citing New's decision to bolster their
argument that plaintiffs' claims against publishers have no merit
and serve only to keep the case in state court.  Pfizer Inc.
recently filed a copy of New's ruling with the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, in several cases alleging birth defects from the
popular anti-depressant Zoloft.

Judge New's opinion "squarely supports Pfizer's arguments that the
Wolters Kluwer publisher defendants have been fraudulently joined
because Plaintiffs cannot state a colorable claim against them,"
Pfizer argued in a court filing, seeking to keep the cases in the
federal multidistrict litigation.


YPF SOCIEDAD: Faces Suit Over Repsol Share Sale Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
YPF Sociedad Anonima is facing a class action lawsuit related to
certain YPF share sale transactions undertaken by Repsol,
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.

YPF has recently been served of a class action complaint related
to certain YPF share sale transactions undertaken by Repsol in
March 2011.  The claim is based on an alleged failure to inform
the market, and consequently the purchaser parties in such
transactions, as of March 2011, regarding the potential risk of
expropriation of the Company, and on the corresponding alleged
effect on the value of the shares.  Given the particular nature of
the complaint and the results of the evidence presented, the
Company cannot estimate a loss or a reasonably possible range of
loss.

YPF is a limited liability company (sociedad anonima),
incorporated under the laws of Argentina and headquartered in
Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires.  The Company is an energy company
operating a fully integrated oil and gas chain.  The Company's
upstream operations consist of the exploration, development and
production of crude oil, natural gas and LPG, while the downstream
operations include the refining, marketing, transportation and
distribution of oil and a wide range of petroleum products,
petroleum derivatives, petrochemicals, LPG and bio-fuels.


* Dworken Donates Unclaimed Class Action Funds to New Directions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. on May 21 disclosed that a total
of $225,184.04 in unclaimed class action funds was directed to New
Directions For Living in Painesville Ohio by the law firm of
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.  The monies were distributed a few
years ago by Patrick Perotti, a Partner at the law firm and an
advocate of the doctrine known as cy pres.  "I am thrilled and
humbled that these monies are providing transitional housing in
our community," commented Mr. Perotti.  "Everyone needs to look
out for their neighbors in times of need.  New Directions for
Living will be a tremendous source of help and the helping hand
that many in our community deserve."  On May 29 there will be a
ribbon cutting ceremony to celebrate the new housing facility.

The apartment building is located 201-205 North St. Clair in
Painesville, Ohio The building was originally constructed in 1920
with subsequent additions made several years later.  Much of the
property was remodeled in 2008 and currently each unit is being
upgraded with new floor coverings, fresh paint, and furnishings.
The total square living space of the seven units is 6,024 square
feet.

New Directions for Living was established in 1983 with the name of
"Semi-Independent Living".  In 2002 the name was changed to" New
Directions for Living."  The purpose of this program is to provide
transitional housing for homeless or near homeless individuals and
families as well as short-term transitional housing for families
experiencing a crisis such as a fire, flood, or foreclosure.  New
Directions for Living provides weekly Case Management services
including budget planning, employability skills training, and
Mother-2-Mother, Father-2-Father mentoring programs.  Individuals
and families work with the Case Manager and Social Worker to
develop program goals that they are expected to adhere to.
Seventy (70%) of those individuals completing the program become
self-sufficient.

Mr. Perotti made a discovery around 6 years ago that changed the
course of all his settlements.  And local charities are grateful
he did.  To date, over $25 Million Dollars has been distributed to
charities throughout NE Ohio.

In a settlement, both sides reach an amount of compensation which
they agree is fair.  "A settlement is an agreement which has terms
that are presented to the court," explained Mr. Perotti, Managing
Partner of the Class Action and Employment Group, of Dworken &
Bernstein.  "The parties gain the court's approval based on the
agreed terms.  Truth in settlement means you actually pay the
agreed amount, rather than having it revert back to the defendant
a year later.  Demanding a cy pres provision in the settlement
agreement makes the full payment happen, and makes the process
transparent and honest."  Mr. Perotti typically will not settle a
case without a cy pres provision.  "Not all cases have leftover
funds, but when they do, Dworken & Bernstein wants them
distributed 'as nearly as possible' to the intended benefit."

To date, over 187 charities throughout the state have shared over
$25 million dollars in unclaimed funds.  In some cases, certain
charities where within weeks of having to close their doors due to
the economy and budget cuts.  To see a complete list of charities
and read about what cy pres is and can do, visit their website at
http://www.ohiolawyersgiveback.org

Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. is the largest law firm in Lake,
Geauga and Ashtabula Counties, Ohio with additional offices in
downtown Cleveland.  Serving the community for over 50 years,
Dworken & Bernstein and its 27 lawyers and staff of 65 offers a
full range of legal services for businesses, individuals, and
families.


* Solar Industry Faces Solar Panel Quality Concerns
---------------------------------------------------
Todd Woody, writing for The New York Times, reports that the solar
panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland
Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their
expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.

Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects
caused two fires that took the system offline for two years,
costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.

It was not an isolated incident.  Worldwide, testing labs,
developers, financiers and insurers are reporting similar problems
and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis
just as solar panels are on the verge of widespread adoption.

No one is sure how pervasive the problem is.  There are no
industrywide figures about defective solar panels.  And when
defects are discovered, confidentiality agreements often keep the
manufacturer's identity secret, making accountability in the
industry all the more difficult.

But at stake are billions of dollars that have financed solar
installations, from desert power plants to suburban rooftops, on
the premise that solar panels will more than pay for themselves
over a quarter century.

The quality concerns have emerged just after a surge in solar
construction.  In the United States, the Solar Energy Industries
Association said that solar panel generating capacity exploded
from 83 megawatts in 2003 to 7,266 megawatts in 2012, enough to
power more than 1.2 million homes.  Nearly half that capacity was
installed in 2012 alone, meaning any significant problems may not
become apparent for years.

"We need to face up to the fact that corners are being cut," said
Conrad Burke, general manager for DuPont's billion-dollar
photovoltaic division, which supplies materials to solar
manufacturers.

The solar developer Dissigno has had significant solar panel
failures at several of its projects, according to Dave Williams,
chief executive of the San Francisco-based company.

"I don't want to be alarmist, but I think quality poses a long-
term threat," he said.  "The quality across the board is harder to
put your finger on now as materials in modules are changing every
day and manufacturers are reluctant to share that information."

Most of the concerns over quality center on China, home to the
majority of the world's solar panel manufacturing capacity.

After incurring billions of dollars in debt to accelerate
production that has sent solar panel prices plunging since 2009,
Chinese solar companies are under extreme pressure to cut costs.

Chinese banks in March, for instance, forced Suntech into
bankruptcy.  Until 2012, the company had been the world's biggest
solar manufacturer.

Executives at companies that inspect Chinese factories on behalf
of developers and financiers said that over the last 18 months
they have found that even the most reputable companies are
substituting cheaper, untested materials.  Other brand-name
manufacturers, they said, have shut down production lines and
subcontracted the assembly of modules to smaller makers.

"We have inspectors in a lot of factories, and it's not rare to
see some big brands being produced in those smaller workshops
where they have no control over quality," said Thibaut Lemoine,
general manager of STS Certified, a French-owned testing service.
When STS evaluated 215,000 photovoltaic modules at its Shanghai
laboratory in 2011 and 2012, it found the defect rate had jumped
from 7.8% to 13%.

In one case, an entire batch of modules from one brand-name
manufacturer listed on the New York Stock Exchange proved
defective, Mr. Lemoine said.  He declined to identify the
manufacturer, citing confidentiality agreements.

"Based on our testing, some manufacturers are absolutely swapping
in cheap Chinese materials to save money," Jenya Meydbray, chief
executive of PV Evolution Labs, a Berkeley, Calif., testing
service.

SolarBuyer, a company based in Marlborough, Mass., discovered
defect rates of 5.5% to 22% during audits of 50 Chinese factories
over the last 18 months, said Ian Gregory, the company's senior
marketing director.

Some Chinese manufacturers acknowledge that quality has become a
problem

"There are a lot of shortcuts being taken, and unfortunately it's
by some of the more reputable companies and there's also been lot
of new companies starting up in recent years without the same
standards we've had at Suntech," said Stuart Wenham, the chief
technology officer of Suntech, which is based in Jiangsu Province
in eastern China.

When asked about quality standards, Trina Solar, one of the
largest Chinese manufacturers, said in an e-mailed response, "For
Trina, quality will not be compromised in our cost-reduction
efforts."

The heart of a solar panel is a photovoltaic cell that generates
electricity when struck by sunlight.  Among the most critical
components are a thin film that protects the cell from moisture,
and the encapsulant that seals the cell between layers of glass.

Mr. Gregory said repeat inspections of factories found some
manufacturers had been constantly switching to cheaper materials,
including some whose use-by date had expired.

"If the materials aren't good or haven't been thoroughly tested,
they won't stick together and the solar module will eventually
fall apart in the field," he said.

That's what happened in 2011 at a year-old Australian solar plant,
Mr. Meydbray of PV Evolution said.  Testing confirmed that
substandard materials were causing the Chinese-made modules'
protective coating to degrade, he said.  The power plant operator
declined to be identified.

"I think quality is increasingly a concern, but it's not a major
issue yet," said Rhone Resch, chief executive of the Solar Energy
Industries Association, a trade group.  "As companies race to cut
their costs, some who are on the edge may take short cuts."

The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory has
studied the performance of solar panels up to 2010, according to
Sarah Kurtz, a scientist who manages the laboratory's photovoltaic
reliability group.

"The question is whether things are deteriorating rapidly or
whether it's a few isolated companies not doing so well on their
quality control," she said.  "I hear a lot of angst, but I haven't
seen a lot of solid information."

All solar panels degrade and gradually generate less electricity
over time.  But a review of 30,000 installations in Europe by the
German solar monitoring firm Meteocontrol found 80% were
underperforming.  Testing of six manufacturers' solar panels at
two Spanish power plants by Enertis Solar in 2010 found defect
rates as high as 34.5%.

Enfinity operates solar installations in Europe and the United
States.  Bob Hopper, Enfinity's chief development officer, said
his company had stopped buying Chinese modules because of quality
concerns.  "Even a small amount of unforecasted degradation in
electricity production can have significant economic impact on
us," he said.

In the Netherlands, René Moerman, chief strategy officer of Solar
Insurance and Finance, said claims had risen 15% recently. He said
an inspection of a solar plant in Britain in March revealed that
12% of the newly installed Chinese-made modules had failed.  He
said confidentiality agreements prevented him from naming the
manufacturer.

Other solar developers and installers said they had not
experienced quality problems.

"The systems we installed in 2012 had the best performing year
yet," said Lyndon Rive, chief executive of SolarCity, the largest
residential solar installer in the United States and a buyer of
panels from China's Yingli Solar and Trina.

Non-Chinese manufacturers have had quality problems as well.  The
defective panels installed on the Los Angeles area warehouse, for
instance, were made by an American manufacturer.  A reporter was
granted access to the project on the condition that the parties'
identities not be disclosed because of a confidential legal
settlement.

First Solar, one of the United States' biggest manufacturers, has
set aside $271.2 million to cover the costs of replacing defective
modules it made in 2008 and 2009.

Nor are all solar developers shunning Chinese manufacturers.  The
United States subsidiary of Yingli, the world's largest solar
panel maker since 2012, won a contract last year to supply solar
panels for a California power plant.

"The one thing I can tell you is that Yingli does not cut
corners," said Brian Grenko, vice president for operations at
Yingli Americas, adding that only 15 defective modules had been
returned to the company out of 2.8 million shipped to the United
States since 2009.

Still, Yingli executives acknowledge that quality has become a
competitive issue.

The company now offers a comprehensive insurance policy to
customers and has established its own testing laboratory in the
San Francisco area.

Mr. Wenham, the Suntech executive, said manufacturers needed to be
held accountable and advocated creating testing labs not beholden
to the industry that would assess quality.

"We need to start naming names," he said.


* Line of Toys Among Recent List of Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a line of toys that could damage
a child's hearing and snowboard bindings with faulty straps are
among recent list of recalled products.  Others include children's
pajama sets and crib bumpers.

Here's a more detailed look:

TOYS

DETAILS: Dan-Dee "Chicken Dance" Tap Dance Easter Chicks. 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.  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.  They were sold at select Fred Meyer
stores in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska from February to
March 2013.

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

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 1,000.

FOR MORE: Call Fred Meyer at 888-247-4439 or visit
www.fredmeyer.com and then click on Recall Alerts under Services
at the bottom of the page for more information.

SNOWBOARD BINDINGS

DETAILS: GNU Snowboard Bindings imported by Mervin Manufacturing.
The recalled snowboard bindings include men's, youth, and women's
sizes. The bindings attach to the snowboard with screws, and to
the snowboard boot with straps with buckles.  The brand name "GNU"
is imprinted on the front of the straps or on the baseplate. They
were sold from August 2912 to March 2013.  The SKU number can be
found on the model sticker located on the original packaging.
Styles and SKU numbers included in the recall can be found at
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2013/GNU-Snowboard-Bindings-
Recalled-by-Mervin-Manufacturing/

WHY: The ankle straps can break.

INCIDENTS: 30 reports of the binding straps breaking. No injuries
were reported.

HOW MANY: About 6,800 pairs in the U.S. and 1,200 in Canada

FOR MORE: Call Mervin Manufacturing at 800-905-0551 or visit
www.mervin.com and click on Recall for additional information.

CHILDREN'S WATER BOTTLES

DETAILS: Pink and blue plastic 16-ounce water bottles with "H&M
Sweden" and "www.hm.com" embossed on the bottom of the bottle.
The recalled products were made in June 2012.  The water bottle
contains the manufacture date in an embossed date clock on the
bottom of the bottle.  The inner circle on the clock contains the
number 12 with an arrow between the two numbers.  The arrow points
at the number 6 in an outer circle of numbers.  They were sold at
H&M stores with children's departments nationwide from July 2012
through March 2013.

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

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

HOW MANY: About 2,900 (previously recalled in Sept. 2012)

FOR MORE: Call H&M at 855-466-7467 or visit www.hm.com and click
on United States, then Customer Service at the bottom of the page
and Recalled Items from the left column for more information.

CHILDREN'S PAJAMA SETS

DETAILS: Vive La Fete children's cotton or cotton/polyester two-
piece pajama sets with style numbers HSH158BPL and HSH159BPL.
They were sold in children's sizes 6 months through size 12.  They
consist of a long-sleeve shirt with collar and buttons paired with
matching full-length pants with elastic waistband.  Pajama set
style HSH158BPL is blue with a white snowflake pattern.  Pajama
set style HSH159BPL is red and white gingham checkered pattern.
The style number is printed on a white label located on the
garment's hangtag.  There are two tags sewn into the neckline.
"VIVE LA FETE" is printed on the top tag.  The garment size and
fiber content with the phrases "CARE ON REVERSE" and "MADE IN EL
SALVADOR" are printed on the bottom tag.  They were sold from
September 2012 to January 2013.

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

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 710.

FOR MORE: Call Vive La Fete at 800-535-7396 or visit
www.vivelafete.com and click on "Product Recall" at the bottom of
the page under the "Shopping With Us" section.

MOTORCYCLES

DETAILS: Thirteen models of KTM and Husaberg brand
competition/closed course and Enduro motorcycles. The 2013 KTM
models include: 85 SX, 85 SXS, 125 SX, 150 SX, 150 XC, 200 XC-W,
250 SX, 250 XC, 250 XC-W, 300 XC and 300 XC-W.  The 2012 and 2013
Husaberg models include: TE 250 and TE 300.  The model number is
printed on the rear fender on both sides of the motorcycles below
the tail end of the seat.  The KTM motorcycles are black and
orange and KTM is printed on the front number plate and on both
sides of the shrouds covering the fuel tank.  The Husaberg
motorcycles are blue, yellow and white with Husaberg printed on
both sides of the shrouds covering the fuel tank.  Consumers can
identify the model year by checking the letter in the 10th
position of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the right
side of the steering head. The letter "C'' is a 2012 model; "D''
is a 2013 model.  They were sold at authorized KTM and Husaberg
dealerships nationwide from January 2012 to April 2013.

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

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 7,000.

FOR MORE: Call KTM North America Inc. or Husaberg North America at
888-985-6090 or visit www.ktm.com, then click on Dealer & Service
and select Service, or at www.husaberg.com, click on Dealers &
Service, then select Service, then click on Service & Safety Check
for more information.

CRIB BUMPERS

DETAILS: Pottery Barn Kids Sweet Lambie Crib Bumpers made from
April 2009 through July 2012.  The cotton bumpers are padded and
fit standard cribs. Lambs in grass and lambs with trees are
embroidered on the interior and exterior of the bumpers.  They
were available in the colors pink, blue, and ivory/oatmeal.  Model
number "708859," ''708917" or "7988348" and "Sweet Lambie Bumper"
appear on a tag fastened to the bottom edge of the bumpers. The
date of manufacture in MM/YYYY format is printed on a tag attached
to the bumper near the model number tag.  They were sold at
Pottery Barn Kids stores and catalogs and Pottery Barn Outlet
stores nationwide, and online at potterybarnkids.com from April
2009 through July 2012.

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

INCIDENTS: Two reports of the decorative stitching coming loose
and entangling children, including reports of the thread wrapping
around a child's neck. No serious injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 12,000.

FOR MORE: Call Pottery Barn Kids at 855-323-5138 or visit
www.potterybarnkids.com and click on Safety Recalls at the bottom
of the page for more information.

TEA TUMBLERS

DETAILS: Teavana Glass Tea Tumblers 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. They were sold exclusively at Teavana stores and online
at Teavana.com from August 2007 through May 2013 . Model names,
SKU/product codes, and UPC codes can be found at
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2013/Teavana-Recalls-Glass-Tea-
Tumblers/

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

INCIDENTS: There have been 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.

HOW MANY: About 445,000 in the U.S, and 24,850 in Canada

FOR MORE: Call Teavana at 877-261-1509 or visit www.Teavana.com,
and click on "Glass Tumbler Recall" for more information.


* Chinese Premier Increases Monitoring of Baby Formula Production
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has
vowed to increase monitoring of production of milk powder for
babies and crack down on safety violators, saying the quality of
infant formula affects the nation's future.

Mr. Li's comments appeared aimed at trying to restore public
confidence in China's dairy industry, which has been mired in
product safety and image problems.

Mr. Li told a meeting of Cabinet officials May 31 that the quality
of infant formula should be tested with the same standards used
for medicines and that each step of the production process must be
monitored.

Concerns about the safety of domestic milk powder has fueled
Chinese demand for foreign-made infant formula, leading to bulk-
buying in Hong Kong, Britain and some other countries.

Melamine-tainted milk formula killed at least six babies in 2008.


* Drugmaker Urges FDA to Clarify Shared Risk Management Plan Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that a brand drugmaker
is urging the Food and Drug Administration to clarify laws that
require brand drug companies to enter into shared risk management
plans with their generic competitors.

Prometheus Laboratories Inc., in a rare petition on the issue that
was made public on May 28, said that the agency's "failure to
provide meaningful direction" on the requirement has generated
uncertainty in the pharmaceutical industry, exposing brand
drugmakers to potential antitrust and product liability lawsuits.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA can
require a drugmaker to comply with so-called "Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategies," or REMS, to limit potential safety risks.
For example, the agency can require drugmakers to include a
package insert with the medication or limit the channels of
distribution for a drug.

In 2007, Prometheus, which is based in San Diego, acquired the
brand-name drug Lotronex, used to treat diarrhea in women with
irritable bowel syndrome, from GlaxoSmithKline.  Due to reported
side effects of bowel injuries from the drug, Prometheus adopted a
risk management program to limit potential harm. Under the
program, doctors must enroll in the program to be able to
prescribe Lotronex, pharmacists must provide patients with a
medication guide and Prometheus is required to closely monitor
compliance with the program's conditions.

Under the FDA Amendments Act of 2007, if a brand-name drug is
subject to a risk mitigation program, the generic version must
comply with the same conditions unless the FDA grants the generic
company an exemption.

In 2010, Roxane Laboratories submitted an application with the FDA
to make a copycat version of Lotronex, prompting Prometheus to sue
the generic drugmaker for patent infringement - litigation that is
still pending.

While Prometheus and Roxane have been in discussions to develop a
shared risk management plan, they have not reached an agreement,
Prometheus said in its petition filed on May 10.  The brand-drug
company contends that expecting brand and generic competitors that
are currently embroiled in patent litigation to reach an agreement
and work together as business partners is "unprecedented" in
federal law and raises several problems.

"With no standards or guidance and no useful precedent,"
Prometheus' vice president of legal affairs, William Franzblau,
wrote in the company's petition, "sponsors face significant
resource commitments, as well as uncertain risks arising from
antitrust law and product liability, as they enter into
negotiations and attempt to finalize agreements."

                      Finding Strategies

Indeed, deals between brand and generic drugmakers have attracted
government antitrust scrutiny in the past.  The Federal Trade
Commission has challenged deals in which brand-name drug companies
pay generic rivals to keep their cheaper products off the market,
with the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide this term whether such
"pay-for-delay" agreements violate antitrust laws.

Such antitrust scrutiny could easily extend to agreements between
brand and generic drugmakers to enter into shared risk management
programs and negotiate cost-sharing payments, Prometheus argued.
A brand drugmaker's failure to reach an agreement could also be
seen as an illegal attempt to maintain a monopoly over the drug in
violation of federal antitrust law, the company contends.

Along with antitrust risks, the current regulatory framework
raises questions about who may be held liable for injuries caused
by the generic versions of a drug in a shared risk management
program.  By sharing its safety program with a generic, a brand
drugmaker could expose itself to liability for injuries caused by
the generic product, according to the petition.

Prometheus and Roxane did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on the petition. A call to Prometheus's lawyer, Mr.
Franzblau, was not immediately returned.

The FDA declined to comment on the petition.

When FDA first required the shared plans in 2007, it was mainly
dealing with brand and generic products that were already on the
market, which presented a less contentious situation, said Rebecca
Dandeker, a food and drug lawyer at Morgan Lewis & Bockius.  That
may have given the agency a false sense that the companies could
work together, she said.  Now the brand drugmakers are often
facing generic newcomers that may be opponents in patent
litigation.

"In those situations, the brand and generic are very much on
opposite sides," Ms. Dandeker said.  "Turning around at the same
time and working together to develop a shared REMS program is
going to be difficult."

The FDA previously announced that it would hold a two-day public
meeting in July to seek input on ways to streamline and
standardize risk mitigation strategies.


                             *********

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  * * *