CAR_Public/130611.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 114

                             Headlines



AETNA LIFE: Accused of Misinterpreting Medical Benefit Plans
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Overcharging Suit vs. Unit
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Dairy Products Sale
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Diesel Discount
ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Hebrew Markings

ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Petrol Discounts
ALON HOLDINGS: Deal in Suit Over Allowed Maximum Prices Approved
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Class Suit Over Misleading Special Sales
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Breach of Regulation Order
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Saying Unit Misleads YOU Card Holders

ALON HOLDINGS: Disabled Parking Law Violation Suit Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Defends Suit Over "Spidomat" Arrangement
ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Still Defends LPG-Related Class Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Gasoline 95 Octane-Related Suit Remains Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: In Mediation to Settle Suit Over Purchase Vouchers

ALON HOLDINGS: Mega and You Face Suit Related to "CalChoice"
ALON HOLDINGS: Mega Faces Suit Over Delicatessen Product Marking
ALON HOLDINGS: Mega Sued Over Misleading Product Descriptions
ALON HOLDINGS: Phone Services Suit Settlement Approved in Jan.
ALON HOLDINGS: Plaintiff Appeals Fueling-Related Suit Dismissal

ALON HOLDINGS: Ready-Made Cakes & Cookies-Related Suit Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Reviews Suit vs. Mega Over Excessive Charges
ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Consumer Law Violation Suit Approved
ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit Over "Economy Packs" Approved
ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit Over Unconsumed Gas Approved

ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit Over White Cheese Packages OK'd
ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Suit Over Weight of Product Packages
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over 1994 Cartel vs. Unit Remains Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Alonit Stores' Product Labels Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Font Size of Written Ads Dismissed

ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Food Products With Fluids Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Ingredient Markings Withdrawn in March
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Sales at Kfar Hasha'ashuim Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Sugared Fruit Products Withdrawn in Dec.
ALON HOLDINGS: Tenant Suit vs. Dor Alon Dismissed in February

ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Accused of Violating Sanitarian Standards
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Alleging Breach of Regulations
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit by Series A Debenture Holders
ALON HOLDINGS: Units Face Suit Over Baby Mattress Certification
ALON HOLDINGS: Vending Machines Suit vs. Units Withdrawn in Feb.

ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of "Ski" Soft White Cheese Suit Okayed
ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Choking Hazard Warnings Suit OK'd
ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Egg-Noodle Products Suit Approved
ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Petrol Temperature Suit Granted
ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Price Per Unit Marking Suit OK'd

ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Water Contamination Suit Approved
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: In Debate Over Viability of Claims
AMYRIS: Securities Class Action Over Biofene Production Baseless
AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Grants Review of Mississippi vs. Au
CHULA VISTA, CA: Settles Utility Tax Class Action for $8 Million

CVS CAREMARK: Investors Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
DE BEERS: Consumers Set to Get Class Action Settlement Checks
EL AL ISRAEL: Passengers File Class Action Over Cancelled Flight
ELECTRONIC ARTS: 3rd Cir. Returns Likeness Case to N.J. Court
FANNIE MAE: Genesee County Will Go on With Class Action Lawsuit

FRONTPOINT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Libor Manipulation
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Former Shareholder Withdraws Class Action
IDEATIONS DIVEALERT: Recalls 2,500 Scuba Dive Signaling Devices
IKEA CANADA: Recalls 6,000 LYDA Jumbo Cups Due to Burn Hazard
INDIANA: BMV Admits it May Have Overcharged Driver's Licenses

JAMAICA PUBLIC: Dec. 9 Hearing Set for Class Action Appeal
KLEYNIMALS LLC: Recalls Stainless Steel Key Toys for Babies
KOHL'S DEP'T STORES: Appeals Court Revives False Ad Class Action
MAGNUM HUNTER: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Class Action
MERCK: Judge Allows Propecia Class Action in Canada to Proceed

NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Faces Debt Collection Class Action in Florida
ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Nix Digital Music Class Action
PACIFIC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Broker Trust Breach
RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Trial in Securities Suit in November
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Data Breach Class Action Removed to Federal Court

SINO-FOREST CORP: Lerners Discusses Shareholder Litigation
ST. CROIX: Ruling May Have Impact on Environmental Mass Actions
STANDARD FIRE: Mitchell Silberberg Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
US NURSING: Littler Mendelson Discusses Class Action Settlement
VENTRUS BIOSCIENCES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

VISA INC: NRF Opts Out of Swipe Class Action Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Several Retailers Opt Out of Card Fee Settlement
YELP: Small Claims Court Ruling in Advertising Suit Appealed

* Product Liability Class Action Resurgence Expected in Australia
* IDTIS Issues Alert on Medical Class Action Scam


                             *********


AETNA LIFE: Accused of Misinterpreting Medical Benefit Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth L., James L., and Olivia L., individually and as
representatives of the class of similarly situated individuals;
and L.M. and N.M., as guardians of M.M., and as representatives of
the class of similarly situated individuals v. Aetna Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-02554 (N.D. Cal., June 6,
2013) is brought on behalf of a proposed class composed of
individuals covered by Aetna insurance policies or Aetna
administered health benefit plans, who have been wrongfully denied
authorization and payment for mental health services at
residential treatment facilities.

Aetna has systematically misinterpreted and misapplied the
language of the medical benefit plans it insures and administers
in a way that has resulted in wrongful denial of claims for
residential treatment facilities that are licensed to provide
inpatient care in the state in which the residential treatment
facility does business, the Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that
as a result of its misinterpretation and misapplication of its
insurance policies or medical benefit plan language, Aetna
routinely denies authorization and coverage of mental health care
provided at residential treatment facilities that it should
authorize and cover under the plain language of the plan.

Elizabeth, James and Olivia are residents of Los Angeles County,
California.  They were covered by a health benefits plan provided
through James' employer, which plan was insured or administered by
Aetna.  L.M. and N.M. are residents of Santa Clara County,
California.  They are the parents and guardians of M.M., a minor
child.  L.M., N.M. and M.M. were covered by a health benefits plan
provided through N.M.'s employer, which plan was insured or
administered by Aetna.

Aetna is a corporation with its principal place of business in
Connecticut.  Aetna provides insurance and third party
administrative service to a variety of individuals and businesses
across the United States and does business in all 50 states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin St.
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 392-2289
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          336 South 300 East, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1739
          Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
          E-mail: brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          Colin P. King, Esq.
          Jessica A. Andrew, Esq.
          DEWSNUP KING & OLSEN
          36 S. State Street, Suite 2400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 533-0400
          Facsimile: (801) 363-4218
          E-mail: cking@dkolaw.com
                  jandrew@dkolaw.com


ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Overcharging Suit vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
subsidiary against a purported class action lawsuit alleging fuel
overcharging, according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In October 2009, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received a
statement of claim and an application for approval of the claim as
a class action; the claim was lodged against Dor Alon and other
fuel companies.  The claimant claims payment of damages of NIS124
million (Dor Alon's share in the said claim amount as per the
statement of claim is NIS21.9 million).  According to the
claimant, the defendants overcharged him for fuel when filling up
his car.  According to the claimant, after passing his debit card
but before starting to fill up, the payment meter started
operating without the provision of fuel.  The overcharge has
allegedly amounted at times to several Agorot and at times to
several NIS.  The parties have reached a compromise that was
rejected by court, and the court asked the parties to file their
pleadings before the compromise agreement is filed.  In the
Company's opinion, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the
chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly,
the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its
financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Dairy Products Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Company and Mega Retail Ltd.
("Mega"), relating to the sale of different cheese and butter
products in the supermarkets operated by Mega.  According to the
claimant, the Company sells surrogate cheese and butter products
as if they were real cheese and milk products, and in that way
misleads the customers.  The claimant quantifies his damage at
approximately NIS700 and estimates the damage to the group of
claimants for the purpose of the claim at NIS456 million.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Diesel Discount
------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
"YOU" loyalty plan, claiming that discounts for filling the car
with diesel at Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. petrol
stations, which the club supposedly promised as well as wrongly
advertised were not given in reality.  If the claim were to be
accepted as a class action, the claimant assesses his claim at
NIS54 million.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Hebrew Markings
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd., continues to defend
itself against a purported class action lawsuit over Hebrew
marking in products sold by its "Kfar Hashashuim" chain of stores,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In January 2012, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company regarding
the sale of toy and other products by its "Kfar Hashashuim" chain
of stores.  The Claim alleges that the Company fails to mark in
Hebrew required details such as identifying details of the
importer of the products, the manufacturer, supplier, country of
manufacturing, as well as the range of ages the product is
designated for, and certain warnings required by law.  If the
Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate claim is
estimated by the plaintiff at approximately NIS18 million.  The
plaintiff further requested the court to issue a decree ordering
the Company to fulfill the requirements of the law and mark its
products accordingly.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company has not made any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Petrol Discounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
"YOU" loyalty plan customer club, claiming that discounts for
filling the car with petrol at Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988)
Ltd. petrol stations, which the club supposedly promised were not
given.  If the claim were to be accepted as a class action, the
claimant assesses his claim at NIS894 million.  In the opinion of
the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the
chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly,
the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its
financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Deal in Suit Over Allowed Maximum Prices Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit involving Alon Holdings
Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary alleging it sold products
at prices higher than the maximum prices allowed was approved in
December 2012, according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In September 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., along with a request to
be approved as a class action in regard to the sale of products
which, as argued by the claimant, are subject to the Product and
Service Price Regulation Order (Maximum Prices for Milk and Milk
Products) (the "Order").  The lawsuit claims that since the
products carry special kosher certifications they are offered at
prices higher than the maximum prices allowed according to the
Order.  The claim was also filed against Tnuva Corporation, the
Company's main supplier of dairy, fresh produce and poultry
products, and two competing supermarket chains.  The damages
sought from Mega Retail are NIS6 million.

In December 2012, a settlement between the parties was approved by
the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Class Suit Over Misleading Special Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending itself
against a purported class action lawsuit alleging it misleads its
customers with respect to special sales for food products that are
sliced or cut, according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

In March 2012, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company, alleging
that it misleads its customers in special sales it holds regarding
food products that are sliced or cut to the customers' request,
and are priced per weight.  The plaintiff claims that the Company
does not provide full and correct details regarding the terms of
the special sales, violating requirements of the law in connection
with products marking and price display.  The plaintiff claims,
among other, that customers choosing to buy such products under
special sales with accordance to the Company's advertisements are
required to purchase not willingly an extra weight of the product,
for the full price.  If the Claim is approved as a class action,
the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately NIS72 million.  The plaintiff further requests the
court to issue a decree ordering the Company to fulfill the
requirements of the law.  In the opinion of the Company, based on
the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will
be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Breach of Regulation Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending a subsidiary
against a purported class action lawsuit alleging breach of the
product and service regulation order, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 13, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval
as a class action was filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon
Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. and other defendants, for an
aggregate amount of NIS77 million.  The letter of claim states
that the defendants have breached the provisions of the product
and service regulation order (maximum prices in filling stations -
2002 (herein, "the Order") as regards conditions for collection of
extra charge on full service, nighttime service and rest days
service, as well as the provisions of article 3(D) of the of the
product and service regulation order (maximum prices in filling
stations) (amendment) - 2006 (herein, "the Amended Order") as
regards the signage of self-service fuelling pumps.  The claimants
argue that the order has set criteria for a minimum rate of self-
service pumps in the filling stations out of the total number of
pumps in the filling station, and that whenever the criterion is
not met, it is prohibited to collect service fee in that station.
The claimants further allege that according to the Amended order,
whenever a pump is not marked in accordance with the Order, it
cannot be regarded as a self-service pump.  As a result, the
Defendants did not meet the criterion stipulated in the Order in
certain stations and are therefore prohibited from collecting
service fee in those filling stations.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Saying Unit Misleads YOU Card Holders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd., continues to defend a
subsidiary against a purported class action lawsuit alleging it
misleads its "YOU" loyalty plan card holders, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In November 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., alleging that Mega Retail is
misleading its "YOU" card holder customers, by charging prices
higher than advertised for products offered within its customers'
loyalty plan.  If the claim is approved as a class action, the
approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately
NIS10 million.  In the opinion of the Company, should it be
obligated to pay any amount with regard to this matter, it is not
expected to be a material sum.  In the opinion of the Company and
its advisors, the provisions included in the Company's financial
statements are sufficient to cover the potential liabilities.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Disabled Parking Law Violation Suit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's request to withdraw a purported class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Parking for Disabled People Law was
accepted in November 2012, according to Alon Holdings Blue Square
- Israel Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On April 15, 2012, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against a subsidiary of Dor Alon and third parties for a
total amount of approximately NIS4.4 million.  The letter of claim
argued that the defendants violated the provisions of the Parking
for Disabled People Law, 1993-5753 and the Equality for People
with Disabilities Law, 1998-5758, by not providing free parking to
disabled people in the parking lot of "City Windows" in Haifa.
The plaintiff argued that pursuant to the Law, the defendants are
obligated to provide free parking in public parking lots and in
public places that the only access to them is through parking in
such public places.  In November 2012, the court accepted the
plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Defends Suit Over "Spidomat" Arrangement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending
a purported class action lawsuit arising from its "Spidomat"
arrangement, according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 6, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as
a class action was filed against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988)
Ltd. for an aggregate amount of NIS43.2 million.  The plaintiff
claims that as a customer of the Dor Alon "Spidomat" arrangement
for car fueling at reduced prices, she discovered that her
reduction was less than the regular discount given to all other
customers at the station.  As result, the Plaintiff claims she
suffered financial damages from being a member of the "Spidomat"
arrangement.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion
of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Still Defends LPG-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit over temperature of
liquefied petroleum gas, according to the Company's April 29,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2011, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed against Dor Alon Energy In
Israel (1988) Ltd., and other fuel companies.  The issue in the
claim is differences between the temperature of the LPG and the
energy it provides as a result of burning.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Gasoline 95 Octane-Related Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit over the calculation of the
maximum price of gasoline 95 octane remains pending, according to
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 22, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against Dor Alon and the three other gasoline companies for
a total of NIS1 billion (of which Dor Alon's share is NIS167
million).  The claimants argue that the gasoline companies
inflated the "marketing expense item" which is incorporated into
the calculation of the maximum price of gasoline 95 octane by
adding expenses unrelated to the sale of gasoline, thus,
misleading the regulator and enabling themselves to sell gasoline
95 octane at a higher price than the price that should be charged.
The claimants assert that this is violation of legislated
provisions in the Supervision Order on Goods and Services (Maximum
Prices in Gasoline Stations) - 2002; the Consumer Protection Law -
1981; and the Damage Ordinance (new version) - 1968.  In the
opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: In Mediation to Settle Suit Over Purchase Vouchers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. disclosed in its April 29,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that it entered
into a mediation process to settle a class action lawsuit over the
issuance and sale of purchase vouchers.

In September 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., and Shufersal Ltd., a
competitor, along with a request to be approved as a class action
in relation to the issuance and sale of purchase vouchers.  The
action consists of two claims: (1) The designation of an
expiration date to the vouchers constitutes a "depriving
condition" in a standard contract and is therefore invalid; and
(2) The voucher provision that a consumer who uses vouchers to pay
for his purchase can be given change only in vouchers redeemable
in the same store constitutes a "depriving condition" and is
therefore invalid.  The claimant asked for declaratory relief that
these provisions are invalid, as well as for damages calculated by
the court, taking into account all holders of vouchers and/or
shoppers who have used the vouchers over the past seven years.

Mega, Shefersal and the plaintiff have agreed to enter into a
mediation process, which as of April 29, 2013, is still pending.

In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the possibility that the claim will be rejected exceeds
50%.  However, the Company has agreed to enter into a mediation
process, which as of April 29, 2013, is still pending.  If the
mediation will be successful, the impact on the Company's profit
or loss will be immaterial.  In the opinion of the Company and its
advisors, the Company has made sufficient provisions in its
financial statements for this mediation.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Mega and You Face Suit Related to "CalChoice"
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary and its
customer club are facing a class action lawsuit relating to the
You credit card "CalChoice," according to the Company's April 29,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 1, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as
a class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., the You Customer Club, Diners Club
Israel Ltd., and Credit Cards for Israel Ltd., for an aggregate
amount of approximately NIS120 million.  The Plaintiff claims that
the defendants mislead the holders of a certain You credit card
named "CalChoice."  The You credit card "CalChoice" enables its
holders to obtain extra credit by way of charging a minimum of
NIS200 for every NIS5,000 spent.  The remaining balance is
postponed and is charged in the next month, while the holder of
the card can provide each month the amount he would like to pay
out of such balance.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants do
not properly notify the client of the interest rate to be charged,
and that such interest rate is significantly higher than interest
rates charged at bank accounts or other competing credit cards.
The plaintiff further claims that the defendants did not properly
notify the card holder of his option to determine the amount to be
charged each month, whilst automatically charging the minimum
required.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of
its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Mega Faces Suit Over Delicatessen Product Marking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.' subsidiary is facing a
purported class action lawsuit alleging it failed to properly mark
certain delicatessen and bakery products, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On July 26, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., for an aggregate amount of
approximately NIS18 million.  The Plaintiff claims that Mega
failed to properly mark certain delicatessen and bakery products,
which are baked and packed prior to sale within Mega's supermarket
stores, with information regarding their ingredients, nutrition
facts, expiry date, etc.  In the opinion of the Company, based on
the opinion of its legal advisers, the possibility that the claim
will be rejected exceeds 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not
make any provision for this claim in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Mega Sued Over Misleading Product Descriptions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s wholly-owned subsidiary
is facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging certain of its
product descriptions are misleading, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In January 2013, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., for an aggregate amount of
approximately NIS9 million.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
description of certain products sold at Mega's Internet site for
online shopping, containing words such as "Fresh", "Natural"
and/or "Without Sugar" is misleading and does not meet standards
required by law.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the possibility that the claim will
be rejected exceeds 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make
any provision for this claim in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Phone Services Suit Settlement Approved in Jan.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class action lawsuit over free phone
services was approved in January 2013, according to Alon Holdings
Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 10, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against a subsidiary of Dor Alon and its subsidiary for a
total amount of NIS2.5 thousand.  The letter of claim argued that
pursuant to the Consumer Protection Law, 1981, the defendants are
obligated to provide their customers free phone services for a
call in connection with complaints about products or services
provided by the defendants.  The Company and the claimant settled
the claim pursuant to which the Company will pay an immaterial
amount to the claimant.  In January 2013, the settlement was
approved by court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Plaintiff Appeals Fueling-Related Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed
against a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

A class action was lodged against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988)
Ltd. and other fuel companies in December 2007.  The total amount
of the claim is NIS132 million (the subsidiary's share in this
amount is NIS8.8 million).  The claimant asserts that the
defendants charged each customer NIS2 for filling on Saturdays and
on holidays.  In February 2013, the claim was dismissed by the
court and on April 14, 2013, the claimant appealed to the court.
In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Ready-Made Cakes & Cookies-Related Suit Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit related to ready-made cakes and
cookies products was withdrawn in November 2012, according to Alon
Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 4, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as
a class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., and a manufacturer and supplier of
ready-made cakes and cookies products for an aggregate amount of
approximately NIS5 million.  The Plaintiff claims that the
defendants failed to properly mark certain products sold by them
which contain artificial food colorings with the Hebrew name of
such food colorings on the product's label, as required by law.
In November 2012, the plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim
was approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Reviews Suit vs. Mega Over Excessive Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is currently reviewing a
purported class action lawsuit alleging its subsidiary charged
sums exceeding the maximum sums permitted by law, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In March 2013, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., alleging that Mega charged sums
exceeding the maximum sums permitted by law for certain butter,
milk and sour cream products.  The claim does not state the amount
sought.  The Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying
all allegations.  However, at this time, given this matter is
preliminary in nature, the Company's financial statements
currently do not provide for any amount.  The Company will
continue to assess this matter as the request for the class action
develops.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Consumer Law Violation Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit against a subsidiary alleging
violation of the Consumer Protection Law has been approved,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In January 2012, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action were filed against Eden Teva Market, a Company subsidiary,
regarding the alleged violation of the Consumer Protection Law and
regulations, by not marking the price per weight unit of certain
products, which are packed by Eden Teva.  If the claim is approved
as a class action, the approximate claim is estimated by the
plaintiff at approximately NIS5 million.  The Company and the
claimant settled the claim as a result of which the Company paid
an immaterial amount to the claimant.  The settlement has been
approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit Over "Economy Packs" Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit against its subsidiary relating to
"economy packs" labels was approved in April 2013, according to
the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In July 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action was filed against the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., claiming that Mega Retail has
unjustly enriched itself at the expense of the consumers by
selling large packages of goods, which are labeled as "economy
packs," but has not lowered the price of the larger package, thus,
forcing the consumers to buy a more expensive product instead of
sufficing for an ordinary package.  The appellant argues that the
financial damage incurred by all class members is NIS15 million.
The appellant further argues that the class suffered a non-
monetary damage which it did not quantify.  The court was also
asked to issue an affirmative order to instruct the respondent to
price its products according to the labeling as an "economy
package".  In April 2013, the court approved a settlement
agreement entered into between the parties.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit Over Unconsumed Gas Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit over unconsumed gas in containers
was approved in March 2013, according to the Company's April 29,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On March 22, 2009, a class action was filed against a subsidiary
of Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. and other gas companies;
the amount of the claim is NIS821 million (Dor Alon's subsidiary's
share in the said amount is NIS32 million).  In the statement of
claim it is asserted that when the defendants replace a gas
container to the consumer the container still contains a certain
volume of gas, which is later used by the defendants.  According
to the claimants, the defendants fully charge the claimants for
the gas in the container but the consumers do not use all of the
gas they pay for, since some of the gas is taken back by the
defendants.  In March 2013, a settlement between the parties was
approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit Over White Cheese Packages OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit relating to its subsidiary's 500-
gram and 750-gram white cheese packages was approved in April
2013, according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In July 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action was filed against the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., claiming that Mega Retail
misleads its consumers to think that the 500 gram and 750 gram
white cheese packages manufactured by Strauss Group and Tnuva
Corporation, which are labeled as "Economy Packs" are sold at a
discount compared to 250-gram packages.  The appellant argues that
the damage incurred by all members of the class totals
approximately NIS28 million.  It has also requested to issue an
affirmative order to instruct Mega Retail to provide its clients,
who buy the larger packages, a significant discount of at least
20% compared to the price per unit of the product in the smaller
package.  In the opinion of the Company, should it be obligated to
pay any amount with regard to this matter, it is not expected to
be a material sum.  In April 2013, the court approved a settlement
agreement entered into between the parties.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Suit Over Weight of Product Packages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend itself
against a purported class action lawsuit alleging it does not
deduct the weight of the package in which it sells its products,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In October 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company, alleging
that the Company does not deduct the weight of the package in
which it sells different products, such as various meat and
poultry products, fruit and vegetables.  If the claim is approved
as a class action, the approximate claim is estimated by the
plaintiff at approximately NIS181 million.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over 1994 Cartel vs. Unit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2003, a claim was filed in the amount of NIS450
against the gas companies (including a subsidiary of Dor Alon
Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue
Square - Israel Ltd.) alleging that the defendants were parties to
a cartel, which they entered into beginning in 1994 (and even
prior thereto) and up to 2003, in the course of which the
Restrictive Practices Authority gave notice of a recommendation to
file charges against the gas companies and their managers in
connection with the existence of a cartel, as stated.  The
plaintiff contends that by means of the alleged cartel the gas
companies collected unfair and unreasonable prices.  A request for
certification of the claim as a class action pursuant to the
Restrictive Practices Law, the Consumer Protection Law and Rule 29
of the Rules of Civic Procedure (1984), was filed together with
the claim.  The amount of the class action was set by the
requesting party at an amount of at least NIS1 billion, along with
punitive damages.  The subsidiary of Dor Alon has submitted its
response to the request for certification of the claim as a class
action.  The parties twice reached a compromise agreement that was
submitted to Court's approval.  However, the Court rejected the
two compromise agreements and therefore the legal procedures
continue.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Alonit Stores' Product Labels Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff's request to withdraw a purported class action lawsuit
over labels on products in Alonit stores was accepted in August
2012, according to Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s April
29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 23, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd.
received a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as
class action against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon for a
total amount of NIS6 million.  The letter of claim argued that
pursuant to the Consumer Protection Regulation (Price per unit of
measure), 2008, the subsidiary is obligated to label the products
in Alonit stores with a price per unit of measure in addition to
the total price.  In August 2012, the court accepted the
plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Font Size of Written Ads Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit over the font size of written
advertisements filed against a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue
Square - Israel Ltd. was dismissed in March 2013, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On May 25, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., claiming that Mega is in breach of
regulations of the Consumer Protection Law with respect to the
font size of the terms of sale in written advertisements.  The
appellant argues that the financial damage incurred by all class
members is NIS15 million.  In March 2013, the claim was dismissed
by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Food Products With Fluids Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of a purported class action lawsuit alleging that
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. and its subsidiary failed
to properly mark the prices of food products that are saturated
with fluids was approved in February 2013, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On July 15, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., for an aggregate amount of
approximately NIS314 million.  The Plaintiff claims that the
defendants failed to properly mark prices per weight unit of
certain food products that are saturated with fluids.  It is
claimed that the net weight of the product should be marked after
reducing the weight of the fluids, and that by not reducing the
fluids it is impossible to compare the price per weight unit of
different types of the product (for example canned products
compared to frozen or fresh products of the same type).  In
February 2013, a request to withdraw the claim was approved by the
court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Ingredient Markings Withdrawn in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit alleging that several food
products sold at a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square -
Israel Ltd. are not marked properly to reflect the content
percentage of the significant ingredient of the product was
withdrawn in March 2013, according to the Company's April 29,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 11, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as
a class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., and a certain food supplier, for an
aggregate amount of approximately NIS86 million.  The Plaintiff
claims that several food products sold at Mega supermarkets are
not marked properly to reflect the content percentage of the
significant ingredient of the product, such as the percentage of
fish in "fish burgers," the percentage of corn in "corn
schnitzel," etc.  In addition to the compensation sought, the
plaintiff's request is that the court would issue a declaratory
relief and a mandatory order to mark the products as required by
law.  In March 2013, a request to withdraw the claim was approved
by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Sales at Kfar Hasha'ashuim Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff's withdrawal of a purported class action lawsuit
arising from special sales held at "Kfar Hasha'ashuim" brand toy
stores was accepted in November 2012, according to Alon Holdings
Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In May 2011, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a
class action was filed against the Company regarding special sales
held at "Kfar Hasha'ashuim" brand toy stores operated by the
Company's 100% wholly owned subsidiary, Bee Group Retail Ltd.
According to the claimant, the toy stores misled their customers
by not presenting the prices charged for products prior to the
special sales, as required by law, in addition to the special
sales prices.  The claimant estimates the damage to the group of
claimants for the purposes of the claim at NIS30 million.  The
Company says it will continue to assess this matter as the request
for the class action develops.  In November 2012, the plaintiff's
request to withdraw the claim was accepted by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Sugared Fruit Products Withdrawn in Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A mutual request to withdraw a purported class action lawsuit
related to sugared fruit products with food coloring was approved
in December 2012, according to Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel
Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 1, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., and Din Marketing and Roasting Ltd.,
at an aggregate amount of approximately NIS3 million of monetary
damages and approximately NIS2.5 non-monetary damages.  The
plaintiff claims that the defendants sell sugared fruit products
with food coloring as "dried fruits," and therefore are in breach
of a standard forbidding adding food coloring to dried fruits and
in breach of the Consumer Protection Law.  The products are sold
under the private label of Mega.  In December 2012, a mutual
request to withdraw the claim was approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Tenant Suit vs. Dor Alon Dismissed in February
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by a tenant of an apartment
building against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
subsidiary was dismissed in February 2013, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On November 3, 2010, a claim and a request to approve the claim as
a class action was issued against a subsidiary of Dor Alon Energy
In Israel (1988) Ltd. and other gas companies (the share of Dor
Alon's subsidiary was estimated at NIS4 million).  The issue in
the claim is the alleged cooperation between the gas companies and
apartment builders which requires tenants to enter into contracts
with a certain gas supplier in a way the tenant allegedly overpays
the gas company.  In February 2013, the claim was dismissed by the
court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Accused of Violating Sanitarian Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is accused
of failing to comply with law requirements regarding sanitarian
standards of lavatories at its petrol stations, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On September 3, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as
a class action was filed against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988)
Ltd. and a subsidiary of Dor Alon, for an aggregate amount of
NIS50 million.  The plaintiff claims that Dor Alon failed to
comply with law requirements regarding sanitarian standards of
lavatories at its petrol stations, particularly cleaning
requirements and intactness of facilities.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Alleging Breach of Regulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending
a purported class action lawsuit alleging breach of the
Arrangements in the State Economy Regulations, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On June 24, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a
class action was filed against New Dorgaz Ltd., a subsidiary of
Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. ("Dorgaz"), at an aggregate
amount of approximately NIS42 million.  The plaintiff claims that
Dorgaz is in breach of the Arrangements in the State Economy
Regulations that require that at the time of termination of a
contract between a gas supplier and a client that the deposit
payments be returned linked to the Israeli Consumer Prices Index.
In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit by Series A Debenture Holders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
subsidiary from a purported class action lawsuit brought by
holders of its Series A debentures, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 27, 2010, a statement of claim and a request to approve
the claim as a class action and as a derivative claim was filed
against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., members of the
Board of Directors of Dor Alon and Alon Israel Oil Co. Ltd.
("Alon").  The claim was lodged by holders of Series A debentures
of Dor Alon that wish to represent the holders of Series A Dor
Alon debentures as of February 7, 2010, who did not convert the
debentures into Dor Alon shares.  In their claim, the plaintiffs
claim that the distribution (on February 9, 2010) of the shares of
Alon Natural Gas Exploration Ltd. to Dor Alon's shareholders was
an unlawful distribution.  The plaintiffs also claim that Dor Alon
should have adjusted the Series A debentures' conversion rate
following the distribution of shares.  The plaintiffs request that
the Court would oblige Alon and the members of Dor Alon's Board of
Directors to return to Dor Alon the shares that were distributed;
alternatively, the plaintiffs request that Dor Alon will be
required to adjust the conversion rate of the debentures to the
"Ex rate" subsequent to the distribution; alternatively, the
plaintiffs seek damages for non adjustment of the conversion rate.
In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Units Face Suit Over Baby Mattress Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiaries are facing
a purported class action lawsuit alleging the baby mattresses they
sold never received safety certification, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On September 24, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval
as a class action was filed against a subsidiary of Mega Retail
Ltd., Dr. Baby Marketing and Distribution (888) Ltd., Company's
subsidiary Bee Group Retail Ltd, and a manufacturer of baby
products, for an aggregate amount of approximately NIS135 million.
The plaintiff claims that baby mattresses sold by the defendants
as bearing a safety certificate issued by the Standards
Institution of Israel, never received any such approval.  In the
opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the possibility that the claim will be rejected exceeds
50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this
claim in its financial statements.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Vending Machines Suit vs. Units Withdrawn in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff's request to withdraw a purported class action lawsuit
related to automatic cigarette vending machines was accepted in
February 2013, according to Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel
Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On August 11, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against Dor Alon, a subsidiary of Dor Alon and others for a
total amount of NIS33 million.  The letter of claim argued that
the defendants violated the provisions of the law which prohibits
selling tobacco products to minors by placing automatic cigarette
vending machines in the filling stations operated by the
defendants even though the automatic vending machines are not
owned and/or operated by Dor Alon or its subsidiary.  In February
2013, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the
claim.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of "Ski" Soft White Cheese Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A request to withdraw the claim in a purported class action
lawsuit related to "Ski" soft white cheese was approved in March
2013, according to Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In July 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action was filed against the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., claiming that Mega Retail
charged higher prices than it should have charged on packs that
contain two boxes of "Ski" soft white cheese produced by Strauss
Group and sold in cardboard packs, and contrary to its promise
that the discount would account to 20% of the price of "Ski" boxes
of 500 grams, granted an actual discount of only 3%, causing the
consumers to pay NIS3.73 more than they should for each pack.  The
appellant claims that as a result of not being given the discount
by Mega Retail the damage incurred by the class members is
approximately NIS19 million per month.  The court was also asked
to issue an affirmative order to instruct the respondent to grant
to the consumers who buy the larger packages a significant
discount of at least 20% relative to the price per unit of the
product in the smaller package.

In March 2013, a request to withdraw the claim was approved by the
court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Choking Hazard Warnings Suit OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
A mutual request to withdraw the claim in a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of regulations on choking hazard warning on
products was approved in June 2012, according to Alon Holdings
Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In December 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company's 51%
subsidiary, Eden Briut Teva Market Ltd. ("Eden") and additional
food supplier, alleging that Eden and the additional food supplier
are violating the Public Health (Food) Order [new version], 5643-
1983 and its regulations, according to which certain products must
be marked with a choking hazard warning.  If the claim is approved
as a class action, the plaintiff claims it should apply to all
Eden customers that purchased products which should be marked as
such, including any customer who had bought such products by way
of bulk.  If the claim is approved as a class action, the
approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately
NIS10 million.  In June 2012, a mutual request to withdraw the
claim was approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Egg-Noodle Products Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of a purported class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. related to
egg-noodle products was approved in December 2012, according to
the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On September 13, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval
as a class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., Shufersal Ltd. and certain food
suppliers, for an aggregate amount of approximately NIS12 million.
The Plaintiffs claim that the defendants, who produce, import
and/or market egg-noodle products, failed to properly mark these
products with required information regarding the quantity of eggs
they contain.  It is claimed that the products do not contain the
minimum required quantity of eggs for them to be labeled as "Egg-
Noodles", as required by the applicable Israeli formal standard.
It is further claimed that the information regarding the
ingredients of such products is per 100 gram dry product, when it
should be made per 100 gram cooked product.  In December 2012, a
mutual request to withdraw the claim was approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Petrol Temperature Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff's request to withdraw a purported class action lawsuit
relating to petrol temperature against a subsidiary of Alon
Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. was granted in November 2012,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In December 2010, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed with the District Court in Tel
Aviv against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., and other fuel
companies in the total amount of approximately NIS197 million.
The issue in the claim is differences in temperature of the petrol
between the moment it is acquired by the fuel companies and the
moment it is sold to the customers, in a way that misstates the
amount of energy sold to the customers and this way, according to
the claimant, the fuel companies profit millions of NIS per annum.
In November 2012, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to
withdraw the claim.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Price Per Unit Marking Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of a purported class action lawsuit alleging that
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary failed to
properly mark products sold by it with the price per unit of
measure was approved in April 2013, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 25, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as
a class action was filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., for an aggregate amount of
approximately NIS2.8 million.  The Plaintiff claims that the
defendant failed to properly mark products sold by it with the
price per unit of measure, in addition to the total price of the
product.  On April 8, 2013, the court accepted the plaintiff's
request to withdraw the claim.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Water Contamination Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The withdrawal of a purported class action lawsuit alleging
contamination of ground water in Israel was approved in November
2012, according to Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In December 2010, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed with the District Court in Tel
Aviv against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., a subsidiary
of Dor Alon and the three largest fuel companies in the total
amount of approximately NIS200 million.  The claim was filed
arguing that liquid oil in the pipes and petrol tanks caused the
contamination of ground water.  According to the claimants the
fuel companies did not adhere to the guidelines of the Environment
Ministry and did not check the filling installations were
waterproof.  In November 2012, a request to withdraw the claim was
approved by the court.

Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-
- operates supermarkets, food retailers and a chain of filling
stations and convenience stores.  The Company also owns, leases
and develops yield-generating commercial properties and residency
projects.  The Company is headquartered in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: In Debate Over Viability of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Journal, reports that after eight
years of litigation and roughly $1.7 billion in federal court
settlements and fines, is there any authority -- or even any point
-- in continuing to pursue former American International Group
officials in a state civil enforcement action?

That was the underlying question on May 28 before the Court of
Appeals as attorneys for the state and former AIG leaders Maurice
"Hank" Greenberg and Howard Smith debated the continued viability
of claims brought under New York investor protection laws.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, following the lead of two
predecessors, is attempting to hold Messrs. Greenberg and Smith
accountable for sham transactions orchestrated years ago by AIG.

But Mr. Schneiderman's claims under the Martin Act and Executive
Law Sec. 63 were undercut by the settlement in April of a parallel
federal claim.  The state has dropped its claim for damages and is
instead focusing on injunctive and equitable relief.

David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, for Greenberg,
acknowledged that his trial court motion for summary judgment on
the injunctive relief was denied.  But he still argued that the
attorney general never pursued the injunctive/equitable angle
until it was essentially forced to withdraw its damages claim in
the wake of a $115 million class action settlement approved by
Southern District Judge Deborah Batts in April.

"This case has entirely changed," Mr. Boies argued.  "This is a
case they argued one way below, they didn't preserve the arguments
they are making to this court now and what they are trying to do
is somewhat keep this case alive so they can delve into it more
after eight years of not finding anything."

Judge Victoria Graffeo asked, "Why isn't the attorney general
entitled to delve deeper into this issue?"

Judge Robert Smith pondered whether a jury should consider whether
Greenberg's subordinates would "do a crooked deal without asking
him."  But he also pressed Solicitor General Barbara Underwood on
whether the state has anything to gain from pursuing Greenberg and
Smith since it withdrew its damages claim.

"At this point in this case, from your point of view, isn't there
a symbolic aspect to it?" Judge Smith asked.  "Aren't you really
looking for a moral victory here?"

Ms. Underwood said she is "looking to protect the markets of New
York from fraud, to hold him accountable" and stressed that none
of the claims raised initially were abandoned.

Judge Smith cut her off.

"What will happen to the citizens of New York if this case gets
dismissed?" Judge Smith asked.  "You want to show the citizens of
New York that these people can't get away with it."

Ms. Underwood responded, "I think one thing that will happen to
the citizens of New York is they will see it is possible to avoid
responsibility for fraud."

Ms. Underwood said that if the case proceeds the state could still
seek disgorgement of "performance based compensation," apparently
a reference to bonuses.

"We would look to bar [Greenberg] from the securities industry,"
Ms. Underwood said.  "We would look to bar them from serving as
officers and directors of public companies . . . We are also
looking for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains."

The case began in 2005, when then attorney general Eliot Spitzer
deployed the Martin Act to go after Greenberg and Smith, accusing
them of orchestrating two fraudulent reinsurance transactions to
hide AIG's declining financial status from its investors.  AIG
removed Greenberg as its CEO and admitted structuring sham
transactions to boost its loss reserves.  The company paid a $1.6
billion fine.

But the state Attorney General's Office continued to seek relief
for investors under New York's broad investor protection laws.

Many of the claims were thrown out.  But last year a divided panel
of the Appellate Division, First Department, allowed the Martin
Act and Executive Law claims to proceed, despite the defendants'
assertions that the state laws were preempted by federal statute.

The First Department granted leave to the Court of Appeals, but it
is unclear if the preemption issue is moot with the Southern
District settlement.  Mr. Boies said it is no longer relevant.

Andrew Tomback, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder who has been
following the case closely and has written about it for the New
York Law Journal, said the attorney general has little to gain at
this point by continuing the case.

"Even if Schneiderman ultimately manages to prevail, if it's a
victory at all, it's pyrrhic at best," Mr. Tomback said.  "As for
enjoining Hank Greenberg, with all due respect at this point in
his career it is akin to telling Bill Russell he's banned from
basketball."

Vincent Sama of Kaye Scholer argued for Mr. Smith.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman recused himself for undisclosed
reasons, and was replaced by Justice William Mastro of the
Appellate Division, Second Department.

The case has attracted a plethora of amici.

Connecticut and Vermont are urging the court to allow the case to
go forward on the state claims, as is the AARP.

On the other side, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business
groups, as well as a group of former public officials including
former Governor George Pataki, former Massachusetts Governor
William Weld and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, want
the case thrown out.

Amici for the AIG defendants contend that the national regulatory
framework for securities enforcement would be thrown into disarray
if Judge Schneiderman is allowed to pursue Messrs. Greenberg and
Smith under state law.


AMYRIS: Securities Class Action Over Biofene Production Baseless
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxx Chatsko at Motley Fool reports that an investor was bringing
a lawsuit against the company with Milberg LLP.

According to Motley Fool's Chatsko, "While I do think Amyris
management got a little ahead of itself in early projections, I
also think this lawsuit is baseless."

The accusations

The lawsuit claims that Amyris and management violated the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 between April 29, 2011 and
Feb. 8, 2012.  The company is accused of "making false and
misleading statements regarding its ability to sustain commercial
production of Biofene."  Biofene is the company's renewable form
of farnesene, a building-block molecule that can be refined into
thousands of value-added chemicals including high-value squalane
for cosmetics.  And, of course, the share price dropped
considerably (otherwise, there would be no lawsuit).

Commercial reality

On May 5, 2011, the company released its production timeline,
which turned out to be the biggest mistake it ever made.
Management claimed that it would produce 6-9 million liters of
Biofene in 2011 and 40-50 million liters in 2012.  After running
into contamination, scalability, and separation issues, actual
production volumes totaled much less than that.

Those projections sure look laughable now, but at the time Amyris
had a healthy stable of production facilities online or under
construction.  Third-party manufacturers were producing Biofene in
North Carolina, Spain, Brazil, and elsewhere.  The company was
also building its own commercial-scale facilities in Sao Paulo,
Brazil: one in Brotas (currently operating) and one with Usina Sao
Martinho (construction on hold).

Couple the challenge of scaling an industrial biotech platform --
remember, this industry is walking into the unknown -- with less
than efficient financial operations and you get the current state
of affairs.  Contract manufacturers were axed to save money and
the facility at Brotas seems to have been scaled down from its
ambitious targets.  The biorefinery employs six 200,000 liter
bioreactors -- fewer than the 240,000 liter tanks operated at some
contract sites.

Lesson learned

The financial situation at Amyris is less than enviable.  Whereas
fellow industrial biotech company Solazyme has hit every major
milestone and had no problem raising funds, Amyris has had to take
the more dilutive route for shareholders. Still, large commercial
partners Total and Cosan haven't backed down in their support of
the company.  Total upped its investment in Amyris during several
rough patches in the past year after incurring significant paper
losses on the roughly 20% stake in the company.  Total even has
its own webpage for the partnership, which speaks to its long-term
vision for Amyris' platform, especially in renewable diesel.

Cosan has expanded its joint venture Novvi as recently as March.
Many industrial biotech companies have chased cheap feedstock
sources for initial operations, which makes Brazil's sugarcane an
easy target. Similarly, sugar producers can diversify their
businesses by investing in industrial biotech.  Cosan is looking
to steer production away from sugar (commodity) and ethanol and
into higher-value lubricants and base chemicals with Amyris'
platform.

In recent months, Amyris has also courted Firmenich, Givaudan, and
International Flavors and Fragrances for (ahem) flavors and
fragrances and expanded product development with Kuraray for
polymers and plastics.

Mr. Chatsko said "To say that international manufacturing
companies are excited about the company's products is an
understatement.  It will take time for the company to get on
sturdy financial footing, but I'm cautiously optimistic Amyris has
a bright future ahead of it."

Foolish bottom line

"It doesn't look like management intentionally misled investors.
Instead, the group likely underestimated the challenge of growing
its yeast at commercial scale.  It also doesn't look very good for
the investor to bring the lawsuit almost 16 months after the
period that caused him or her so much financial pain.  This is
just a reminder of what can happen when you invest in a
developmental-stage company in a nascent industry.  My advice:
Take a long-term approach, don't lose sleep over pops and drops,
and don't bring about lawsuits over movements in share price that
occur during a 10-month period."


AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Grants Review of Mississippi vs. Au
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court on May 28 broke a recent string of
unanimous decisions by dividing 5-4 in two prisoners' cases.  Is
it an inkling of what is to come when June arrives?

After the long Memorial Day weekend, the justices got off to a
slow start with those two rulings out of 30 pending cases and two
grants of review, one involving a circuit split over state-
initiated mass actions and the Class Action Fairness Act
(Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp.).

The court's potential blockbuster affirmative action challenge --
Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin -- remains the oldest
outstanding case. It was argued in the first session of the term
in October.


CHULA VISTA, CA: Settles Utility Tax Class Action for $8 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Sampite-Montecalvo, writing for UTSanDiego.com, reports
that the first of three meetings to explain how eligible taxpayers
could submit claims for a piece of an $8 million lawsuit
settlement attracted a handful of people with questions about the
process and criticism for the city of Chula Vista.

The proposed settlement ends a class-action suit by wireless phone
users against the city.  The June 2011 lawsuit challenged a 5
percent fee the city collected from phone customers under the
city's 1970 utility users tax.  The suit said the tax was not
meant to apply to wireless phone service, and the settlement was
reached in April when a San Diego Superior Court judge gave
preliminary approval in favor of taxpayers.

The $8 million will be used to pay refunds, litigation expenses
and attorneys' fees.  Eligible residents can expect a rebate
ranging from $35 to hundreds of dollars.

Dan Hutne, 47, is expecting about $208 back, but said he's
discouraged by the claim process and others may be, too.

"We've got to jump through hoops to get it back," Mr. Hutne said
at the meeting may 20 at the civic center library.  "It's wrong.
We've been disenfranchised of our money."

In November 2010 the city attempted to update the language of its
utility laws through Proposition H, which would have applied the
tax to newer forms of communication but voters defeated the
proposal.

Two Chula Vista residents, Carla Villa, 41, and Vanessa Garza, 36,
then brought a lawsuit forward, which was filed by the law offices
of CaseyGerry and Capretz & Associates.

Ms. Villa and Ms. Garza said the lawsuit is about defending
resident rights.

"The benefit of it is showing the city it's not right to be
charged this tax," Ms. Garza said.

Ms. Villa said she and Ms. Garza thought the tax was injustice.

"It was always our hope that we would win the lawsuit and hopeful
that the facts would speak for itself," she said.

Under terms of the agreement, refunds are available to Chula Vista
wireless phone users who paid the city's utility users tax on
their wireless phone bills between April 2010 and April 2013.

CaseyGerry attorney Jason Evans and Jim Capretz of Capretz &
Associates answered questions from residents at the May 20 meeting
and helped residents fill out claim forms.

Chula Vista resident Tony Davis attended to see if he is eligible
for a rebate and to bring information back to friends who may be
affected.

Mr. Capretz said the settlement gives eligible residents the
opportunity to collect money that should have never been paid in
the first place and any concerns should be expressed to the City
Council during meetings.

"You have to speak up and be heard and that's exactly what should
be done in this situation," he said.

The attorneys anticipate refunds will be disbursed sometime in
December but won't know for sure until a September hearing where
the judge is expected to give final approval.

"Before this there's an appeal process and a chance for people to
object," Mr. Capretz said.  "If someone files an appeal it could
take much longer."


CVS CAREMARK: Investors Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
plaintiffs lawyers at Robbins Geller scored back-to-back appellate
victories in the First and Sixth Circuits, reversing defense wins
for Davis Polk and Winston & Strawn in class action lawsuits
against CVS Caremark and Omnicare Inc.


DE BEERS: Consumers Set to Get Class Action Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bates, writing for JCK, reports that consumers who have waited
years for their De Beers class action settlement money: Your
checks are in the mail.

On April 20, Judge Stanley Chesler approved a motion to disburse
the $108.7 million in funds slated for consumers who filed claims
in the $300 million settlement.

According to a court filing by claims administrator Rust
Consulting, the average payment amount is $180.75.  Payments under
$10 were disqualified.

Some 606,044 consumer claims have been filed. Of those, 574,860
were deemed eligible.  The judge approved a request that the 5,820
valid late claims be allowed.

Consumers or industry members who have queries about individual
claims or about the process in general should contact the claim
administrators at diamondsclassaction.com.

The De Beers class action settlement received final court approval
last May.  The first checks went out to industry members in the
"indirect" purchaser class in August.


EL AL ISRAEL: Passengers File Class Action Over Cancelled Flight
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sapir Peretz, writing for Globes, reports that passengers whose
El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. flight to Thailand was cancelled at
short notice last winter are demanding NIS98.5 million
compensation according to a class action suit submitted on May 23
to the Tel Aviv District Court for approval.

The suit claims that hundreds of passengers, after waiting seven
hours on the El Al plane, were told that the flight was being
cancelled due to a technical breakdown.  The suit also claims that
El Al ignored the Aviation Services Law, which seeks to ensure
that passengers are given assistance, and compensated for
cancelled flights or changed conditions.

The claim says, "Despite everything the passengers were not
provided with food, drink, two telephone calls and the ability to
send faxes or emails as required by law."

The class action suit is demanding NIS3,000 compensation for each
passenger.

The suit claims that at least 10 El Al flights with 350 passengers
are cancelled or delayed each month.  In addition El Al refuses to
fly 150 people per month since the law was enacted nine months
ago.

The class action calculates that compensating 500 people per month
over the past nine months at NIS3,000 per person amounts to NIS
98.5 million.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: 3rd Cir. Returns Likeness Case to N.J. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that a
federal appeals court panel on May 21 overturned a district court
ruling that had dismissed a former Rutgers football player's
lawsuit against video game manufacturer Electronic Arts for
illegally using his likeness and biographical information in its
college football games.

By a 2-1 vote, judges in the 3rd Circuit returned the case to U.S.
District Court in New Jersey for further proceedings consistent
with its opinion.

Michael Rubin, a lawyer who argued for the plaintiff before the
Circuit Court panel, said on May 22 that when the case resumes at
the district court level, his side will file a motion seeking to
have the case certified as a class action.

EA spokesman John Reseburg said the company intends to "seek
further court review."  Asked May 22 whether that would mean
asking for a review of the case by all judges of the 3rd Circuit
or trying to take the case to the Supreme Court, Mr. Reseburg
said: "It's too soon to tell."

The May 21 opinion, written by Circuit Judge Joseph A. Greenaway
Jr., (and a dissent by Judge Thomas L. Ambro) includes
observations about some of the same issues being contested in two
other federal cases.  There is a wider-ranging anti-trust lawsuit
before a federal district court in California against EA, the NCAA
and Collegiate Licensing Co., the nation's leading collegiate
trademark licensing and marketing firm, and a case parallel to
that one currently under consideration by the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The anti-trust suit, whose named plaintiffs include former UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon, concerns the use of college football
and men's basketball players' names and likenesses and is heading
toward a hearing June 20 on whether it will certified as a class
action.  If the O'Bannon 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.

Meanwhile, three judges from the 9th Circuit are still considering
an appeal from EA in a case related to the O'Bannon proceeding
that involves former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam
Keller and EA's use of his likeness in video games.  The three
judges heard arguments on that matter in July 2012.  In a footnote
to his May 21 ruling, Judge Greenaway wrote that the Keller case
"is simply our own case incarnated in California."

A transcript of the oral arguments before Mr. Greenaway and the
3rd Circuit panel were entered into the record of the Keller case
last October.

Also potentially noteworthy about the May 21 ruling: it came after
the case had been argued before a panel of judges that included
one temporarily assigned to the 3rd Circuit, which has
jurisdiction over New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, from the
9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over several western states
including California. (This judge, A. Wallace Tashima, was not
among the judges handling the appeal in the Keller case.)

A ruling in EA's favor in the Keller case could set the stage for
a Supreme Court review because two federal circuit courts would be
in opposition on the same legal issue.

The New Jersey case involves Ryan Hart, a Rutgers quarterback for
the 2002 through the 2005 seasons.  He filed a presumptive class-
action suit in November 2009.  U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson
dismissed the case in September 2011, saying that EA's use of
Mr. Hart's likeness was protected by the First Amendment, which
offers a shield to video games as expressive speech.

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

He noted that EA college football video game's "success owes to
its focus on realism and detail" and that "in NCAA Football 2006,
Rutgers' quarterback, player number 13, is 6'2" tall, weighs 197
pounds and resembles Hart."

Mr. Greenaway, in another part of the opinion, writes: ". . . the
digital avatar does closely resemble the genuine article.  Not
only does the digital avatar match Appellant in terms of hair
color, hair style and skin tone, but the avatar's accessories
mimic those worn by (Hart) during his time as a Rutgers player.
The information, as has already been noted, also accurately tracks
(Hart's) vital and biographical details. . . .

"The digital Ryan Hart does what the actual Ryan Hart did while at
Rutgers: he plays college football, in digital recreations of
college football stadiums, filled with all the trappings of a
college football game."

On a more general basis, Greenaway wrote that EA "seeks to create
a realistic depiction of college football for the users.  Part of
this realism involves generating realistic representations of the
various college teams -- which includes the realistic
representations of the players."

How this could affect the O'Bannon case remains to be seen.

For example, a filing made public on May 20 includes portions of a
deposition from one of the other named plaintiffs in the case,
former Connecticut basketball player Tate George, in which George
said that the avatars in several versions of a video game that are
supposed to represent him do not resemble him.  Mr. George also
said the face of his avatar also appears on other players
representing other teams.


FANNIE MAE: Genesee County Will Go on With Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger, writing for MLive.com, reports that County Treasurer
Deb Cherry says there's no turning back in the high-profile battle
with mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The county is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
the federally chartered mortgage finance companies -- a class
action case that's tied directly to a lawsuit filed by Oakland
County against the same companies.

Oakland County officials previously said they plan to appeal to
the Supreme Court in its claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owe
them $1.5 million and the state $10.5 million in taxes.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 20 ruled in favor of
the mortgage companies, which claim they're exempt from all taxes
as government entities.

A U.S. district judge last year ruled that the exemption did not
apply to state and local real estate transfer taxes and allowed
Genesee County to file its class action on behalf of all other
counties in the state.

"I don't know what the prospects are, but it's an awful lot of
money," Ms. Cherry said on May 22.  "We will all go forward."

The same law firm represents both Oakland and Genesee counties in
the lawsuits.

Ms. Cherry said the county isn't paying legal fees because the
case is being handled on a contingency basis.

The treasurer said she has always expected the question about the
applicability of the transfer taxes would be decided by the
Supreme Court.


FRONTPOINT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Libor Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Thomson Reuters, reports that in April, right
after U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Manhattan
dismissed class action antitrust and racketeering claims against
the global banks that supposedly colluded to manipulate the
benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), Daniel Brockett
of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan politely said, "I told you
so."  Mr. Brockett had been pushing an alternate theory of
liability against the Libor banks, focused on securities and
common-law fraud, not on antitrust violations.  And even in the
Libor litigation wreckage that resulted from Buchwald's ruling, he
said, fraud claims like those filed in March by Freddie Mac's
conservator against a dozen Libor banks were still viable.  The
only catch was that plaintiffs would have to be able to show that
they relied on misrepresentations by panel banks, so cases would
probably have to be brought by individual investors with big
enough losses in Libor-pegged financial instruments to justify the
cost of solo litigation.  Nevertheless, Mr. Brockett said he
believed those investors were out there.

On May 21, one of them surfaced.  Mr. Brockett filed a 106-page
complaint in New York State Supreme Court for Salix Capital, which
owns claims belonging to several shuttered hedge funds that once
operated under the FrontPoint umbrella.  Salix alleges that in
2007 and 2008, the FrontPoint funds engaged in Libor-pegged
interest rate swaps with Libor panel banks as part of complex,
multi-security deals known as corporate bond basis packages. The
swaps were supposed to be a hedge against a global banking crisis,
since Libor should have increased as it became more expensive for
banks to borrow from one another.  Instead, the complaint alleges,
the panel banks artificially suppressed Libor, undermining the
trading strategy of the FrontPoint funds.

The funds "relied on the integrity of how Libor was set and the
truthfulness of defendants' representations about how Libor was
set in entering into these transactions," the complaint said.  "By
suppressing Libor, defendants artificially lowered the amount they
were contractually obligated to pay to the funds under the
interest rate swaps, while still demanding that the funds make the
contracted-for (comparatively high) fixed-rate payments.  In
marketing the basis packages, defendants misrepresented Libor and
omitted to disclose their manipulation of Libor."

The suit blames Libor manipulation for the FrontPoint funds' big
losses in 2008 and eventual demise in 2009, after an avalanche of
redemption requests that the complaint attributes to Libor-related
losses. (Others have linked the redemption demands to insider
trading by FrontPoint principal Chip Skowron.) The funds are
asserting common-law fraud and breach of contract against the
Libor banks, claiming $250 million in damages from inflated
payments to the defendants, reduced payments from the banks and
losses that the funds experienced in a liquidation process that
they claim was triggered by the banks' bad-faith collateral
demands.  That seems to be a more focused theory of liability than
what we saw in the first Libor securities fraud suit to be filed
after the Buchwald antitrust ruling: Charles Schwab's suit in San
Francisco Superior Court, claiming unspecified damages for losses
on Libor-pegged instruments.

"These are tight, targeted fraud claims," Mr. Brockett said in an
interview on May 21.  Because the FrontPoint funds dealt directly
with Libor panel banks, he said, Salix (as the owner of their
claims) can show a relationship of privity with the defendants.
The complaint also takes care to offer evidence establishing New
York state jurisdiction over the claims, which gives Salix the
benefit of New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraud
and breach of contract.

Mr. Brockett wouldn't say if Salix was already a client back in
March, when Buchwald dismissed Libor antitrust claims, nor would
he say whether Quinn Emanuel has other clients poised to file
similar Libor suits.  He certainly hasn't stopped fishing for
would-be plaintiffs.  "There are lots and lots of investors who
dealt directly with the panel banks.  These are the people we
always said have claims," Mr. Brockett said.  "This is where the
future of Libor litigation exists, if it exists."


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Former Shareholder Withdraws Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
not many disputes over pay equity in large law firms are taken
public through high-profile litigation.  And when they are, they
often settle for undisclosed terms, as was the case on May 24 when
Greenberg Traurig and former shareholder Francine Griesing
stipulated the withdrawal of her $200 million gender
discrimination putative class action against the firm.

But that doesn't mean the issue of disparate compensation between
male and female shareholders isn't prevalent throughout the
country's largest law firms, experts and survey data say.

In her lawsuit, Griesing v. Greenberg Traurig, filed in New York
federal district court in December, Mr. Griesing alleged she was
told to look for other employment after complaining about
Greenberg Traurig's compensation policies, which she said created
a "boys' club of origination" that stifled women's ability to
generate business and bill as many hours as men.

Greenberg Traurig adamantly denied the claims.  The two sides said
on May 28 only that the matter "concluded amicably."

Fine, Kaplan and Black's Roberta Liebenberg is the current
chairwoman of the American Bar Association's recently constituted
Gender Equity Task Force.  As part of the task force's work, it
has created tool kits for state and local bar associations on the
business case for gender pay equity.  The task force is set to
publish later this year a manual for law firms called Closing the
Gap that will outline ways firms can close the pay gap.  It will
also publish a similar manual for women general counsel.

Ms. Liebenberg said the statistics from surveys done by
organizations like the National Association of Women Lawyers, the
Minority Corporate Counsel Association and the Project for
Attorney Retention all back anecdotal evidence that women partners
often make less than their male counterparts.

NAWL's annual survey has consistently shown women make less than
men in similar positions within a law firm, Ms. Liebenberg noted.
Of the 200 largest law firms, about 50 percent have no women among
their top 10 rainmakers, she said.

"There's a strong correlation between the fact that women are not
achieving pay equity commensurate with their male equity partners
because that also translates to whether they are getting
positions" of real power in a firm, Ms. Liebenberg said, noting
attorneys on executive committees and running law firms are often
the highest compensated.

A joint study in 2010 by the ABA Commission on Women in the
Profession, the MCCA and PAR went beyond the fact that women were
often paid less and showed women often felt they were bullied for
fighting for origination credit.

According to responses from the more than 700 female law firm
partners who participated in the "Survey of Women Partners on Law
Firm Compensation," 55 percent said they were occasionally or
frequently denied their fair share of origination credit. And 92
percent said revenue generation was the key factor in attaining
equity partnership.

Nearly 30 percent of the respondents in that survey said they were
subjected to intimidation, threats or bullying to back down from
origination point disagreements with their male partners.  And 39
percent reported being dissatisfied with how such disputes are
resolved at their firms, according to the survey results.

Ms. Liebenberg said these surveys touch on the implicit biases
that exist within some large firm cultures that lead to pay
disparity between male and female shareholders.

"I think that this is a real issue for law firms to be focusing on
because the issue of pay and equity compensation definitely
affects attrition," Ms. Liebenberg said.

If there are no senior women in law firm leadership, there are no
women role models and mentors to show younger women they can
succeed in law firms, Ms. Liebenberg said.

"The advancement of women lawyers into equity partnerships and
leadership positions within private law firms is of primary
concern to NAWL, and is an issue that NAWL has studied for nearly
a decade," NAWL President Beth Kaufman said in a statement.
"While NAWL does not take a position on private litigation, or on
settlements of private litigation, NAWL applauds and encourages
all efforts to advance women lawyers into those positions within
the profession in which they should be represented."

According to Ms. Griesing's complaint, Greenberg Traurig has a
closed compensation system in which only CEO Richard Rosenbaum
makes all promotion and compensation decisions with advisement
from four other male shareholders who serve as the compensation
committee.

Greenberg Traurig has three shareholder levels, consisting of the
300 level, 500 level and 1,000 level.  The 1,000 level is the most
highly compensated, and less than 10 percent of that level are
female attorneys, according to the complaint.  The 1,000-level
shareholders get nearly exclusive access to the firm's retreats
where they can network and refer business, Ms. Griesing alleged in
the complaint. According to the complaint, the 1,000-level
shareholders are estimated to earn $1 million more per year than
other shareholders.

Most new shareholders are placed in the 300 or 500 levels and are
required to remain in the 500 level for a certain period of time
before becoming eligible for the 1,000 level, according to the
complaint.  Ms. Griesing was hired at the 300 level, where all but
one of the female Philadelphia shareholders were placed.
According to the complaint, men with similar or less
qualifications were placed in the 500 level.

"By assigning women to lower levels and delaying their promotion,
the firm denies its female shareholders compensation and
opportunities to which they are otherwise entitled," Ms. Griesing
alleged in the complaint.

She alleged the compensation system lacks sufficient standards,
quality controls, implementation metrics, transparency and
oversight.

Ms. Griesing said she brought in more than $4 million in
timekeeper revenues and origination during her time at the firm.
She was told that if she generated $600,000 in originations a
year, she would receive a $108,000 bonus and that the bonus would
increase as the origination increased, according to the complaint.
Despite bringing in double the origination, her bonus was only
$115,000 in 2008, Ms. Griesing alleged in the complaint.

After exhausting other avenues up the food chain in the firm, Ms.
Griesing said in the complaint that she was left with no other
option but to go to Mr. Rosenbaum.  According to the complaint,
Mr. Rosenbaum allegedly told Ms. Griesing he would not investigate
her claims unless she agreed to be "'happy'" at the firm.  Ms.
Griesing then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.

At a subsequent meeting in June 2009, Mr. Rosenbaum allegedly told
Ms. Griesing she needed to leave the firm if she was going to
persist in questioning her compensation, according to the
complaint.

After the meeting, the firm stopped assigning Ms. Griesing work
and urged her principal associate to work for another shareholder,
according to the complaint.  In her December 2009 annual review
with Mr. Rosenbaum, Ms. Griesing said Mr. Rosenbaum "chastised"
her for filing an EEOC complaint.  Mr. Rosenbaum allegedly said he
was finding it "'difficult to treat [Griesing] fairly,'" in light
of those claims, according to the complaint.

On July 28, the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office determined Ms.
Griesing had been paid $50,000 less than her nearest male
counterpart; that women shareholders were on average compensated
less than men at the firm; and men were more likely than women to
be hired above level 300.

In a subsequent portion of the EEOC finding, District Director
Spencer H. Lewis Jr. said he determined there was reasonable cause
to believe Greenberg Traurig violated Title VII and the Equal Pay
Act by compensating Ms. Griesing and other Philadelphia-based
female shareholders less favorably because of their sex.


IDEATIONS DIVEALERT: Recalls 2,500 Scuba Dive Signaling Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ideations DiveAlert, of Seattle, Washington, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,500 DiveAlert and DiveAlert PLUS signaling
devices.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The signaling device can malfunction when used and restrict the
diver's air flow, posing a drowning hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves DiveAlert and DiveAlert PLUS scuba dive
signaling devices with model numbers DA2, DP2 or DV2.  The
signaling device is attached to the diver's buoyancy compensator
device (BCD) power inflator/alternate regulator system by a
chrome-plated brass coupling and is used to activate a loud
surface horn or an underwater percussion noise to alert others in
the event of a diver's emergency.  The devices are also used in
non-emergencies to get the attention of the pickup boat or other
divers.  The DA2 is black with an orange button, the DP2 is black
with a gray knob and red button and has DiveAlert PLUS printed on
it, and the DV2 is black and red.  They can be used with Aqualung
AirSource, Oceanic Air XS, Aeris Air Link and Mares Air Control
regulator/inflators.  Only these signaling devices without any
stamped writing on the coupling's collar are included in this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/82XhTE

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at dive equipment stores nationwide from July
2009 through May 2013 for between $70 and $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled DiveAlert
signaling devices and return them to an authorized DiveAlert
dealer or to DiveAlert for a free repair.  The repair consists of
replacing the defective female coupling.  DiveAlert may be reached
at (800) 275-4332 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, by e-mail at info@divealert.com or online at
http://www.divealert.com/and click on Recall for more
information.


IKEA CANADA: Recalls 6,000 LYDA Jumbo Cups Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------

Starting date:            June 5, 2013
Posting date:             June 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33857

In coordination with Health Canada and the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (US CPSC), IKEA Canada issued a
voluntary recall on the Lyda jumbo cup.

Affected products: LYDA jumbo cup

This recall involves the LYDA jumbo cup with model number
30203379.  The cup is made of stoneware and has a rose design on
it.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/OOMbJm

The cups can break when hot liquid is poured into them, creating a
potential burn hazard.

IKEA is aware of twenty reports globally of the cups breaking when
hot liquid is poured into them.  Ten incidents reported scalding
injuries with three of the reported injuries requiring medical
treatment.

IKEA and Health Canada have not received any reports of incidents
or injuries to Canadians resulting from the use of the LYDA jumbo
cup.

Approximately 6,000 units of the recalled product were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were sold from August 2012 to April 2013 in
Canada.

The recalled cups were manufactured in Thailand.

Companies:

Distributor         IKEA Canada
                     Burlington
                     Ontario, CANADA

Consumer should stop using the cup immediately and return it to an
IKEA store for a full refund.


INDIANA: BMV Admits it May Have Overcharged Driver's Licenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans, writing for The Indianapolis Star, reports that the
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles admits it "may have inadvertently
overcharged a number of Indiana citizens" for driver's licenses,
according to a reply in a class-action lawsuit pending in Marion
Superior Court.

In an answer to the class-action complaint filed by Irwin Levin of
the Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad, the BMV also "admits that
overcharges may have affected a significant number of drivers."

The response filed May 15 by the Indiana attorney general said the
"BMV is without sufficient information at this time to admit or
deny the allegations regarding a systematic overcharge of Indiana
drivers . . . ."

The filing is the latest development in the lawsuit filed in
March.  It claims the BMV has "systematically overcharged"
Hoosiers for driver's licenses since 2007, collecting tens of
millions of dollars more than allowed under state law.

BMV spokesman Dennis Rosebrough said the agency had no additional
comment because of the pending lawsuit.

The class-action complaint seeks a return of the alleged
overcharges to drivers statewide.

The lawsuit alleges that the BMV charged drivers younger than 75
from $4 to $7 more than Indiana law allows when they obtained or
renewed licenses.

"There is specific authority for how much they can charge, and
what they did instead was, apparently, just made up a number,"
Mr. Levin said in March.  "They just disregarded it."

Drivers 75 and older obtain a different type of license, Mr. Levin
said, and the suit does not challenge charges for those licenses.

Mr. Levin said he did not know how much Hoosiers were overcharged.

"The state is going to have to give us that," he said when filing
the lawsuit.  "But based on our calculations, the number could be
as high as $30 (million) or $40 million."

Drivers are charged $21 for a six-year license, $19.50 for a five-
year license and $18 for a four-year license.  The suit says the
maximum the BMV is allowed to charge under Indiana law, however,
is $15 for a six-year license, $13.50 for a five-year license and
$14 for a four-year license.

In 2012, the suit alleges, 2.2 million Indiana driver's licenses
expired and required renewal.

If all those licenses were renewed and drivers were overcharged by
the lowest amount alleged in the suit, the BMV would have
collected $8.8 million more than allowed by law last year.

There are more than 4 million licensed drivers in the state, and
many of them were charged "more than they are lawfully required to
pay in order to obtain their operator's license," the suit
contends.

Marion Superior Court Judge Heather Welch has approved the class
status in the case.  The judge's ruling means she found the single
lawsuit, rather than individual cases, a better option for
resolving the issue potentially affecting a large number of
people.

The BMV's new filing also says that any claims under the lawsuit
should be barred because the plaintiff failed to comply with
provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and that the statute of
limitations for some potential claims has expired.

"The BMV does not stipulate or agree to any legal conclusion
asserted as an allegation in the complaint," the filing says.

"The BMV retains all rights to argue how any law recited in the
complaint should be interpreted by the Court."

Mr. Levin, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, said he was shocked
by the BMV response.

"Are you kidding me?" Mr. Levin said in a statement.  "Two months
of research and investigation and this is what the BMV tells the
people it took money from? I'd like to see a list of just 10
people who are in the class and were not 'inadvertently
overcharged.'

"This case is simple.  The BMV admits it can't charge more than
the law allows -- but it did.  The BMV continues to illegally
overcharge Hoosiers.  They need to stop immediately and give
ordinary citizens back the money they took."


JAMAICA PUBLIC: Dec. 9 Hearing Set for Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
JamaicaObserver.com reports that the appellate court will on
December 9 start hearing the appeals regarding the class-action
lawsuit in which the exclusive aspect of the Jamaica Public
Service Company (JPS) all-island license was declared invalid in
the Supreme Court.

The date was set during a case management hearing in the Court of
Appeal.  The appeal is set for four days.

The appeal was set in train after Justice Bryan Sykes ruled in
July 2012 that the energy minister does not have the power to
grant an exclusive license to the JPS and declared that portion of
the 20-year license invalid.

The suit was filed by Dennis Meadows, Betty Ann Blaine and
businessman Cyrus Rousseau.  The claimants had asked for the
entire license to be declared invalid on the ground that it was
unlawful for one company to be licensed to supply the entire
island with electricity.

In December the court will hear three appeals -- that of the
Government, JPS and the claimants.

The claimants filed a cross appeal asking for the court to declare
the entire license invalid.


KLEYNIMALS LLC: Recalls Stainless Steel Key Toys for Babies
-----------------------------------------------------------

Starting date:            June 5, 2013
Posting date:             June 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33841

Affected products: Kleynimals stainless steel keys for babies

This recall involves the Kleynimals Clean Key Animals toy, which
is classified as an infant rattle in Canada.  The rattle is made
of three stainless steel keys on a stainless steel ring, similar
to a set of house keys.  There are three animal-themed "keys": an
Elephant, a Giraffe and a Lion.  Each key is flat and
approximately 6 centimetres (2.4 inches) long.

The recalled rattles can also be identified by the UPC
853853003007, located on the label on the bag that came with the
product.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/KlvjXR

Assessment by Health Canada has revealed that the keys do not meet
the requirements for the size and shapes of rattles.  They are
small enough to enter into and become lodged in a young child's
throat, posing a choking or suffocation hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Kleynimals, LLC has received any reports
of incidents or injuries related to the use of this toy.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see General toy
safety tips [http://is.gd/Jgs1xp].

Across Canada, 293 of the recalled rattles sold at various
retailers.

The recalled rattles were sold from October 2011 to April 2013.

The recalled rattles were manufactured in the United States of
America.

Companies:

Manufacturer     Kleynimals, LLC
                  Annapolis
                  Maryland
                  UNITED STATES

Consumers should take the Kleynimals rattle away from children
immediately.

For more information on this recall and how to return the rattle
for a full refund, consumers may contact Kleynimals, LLC at 1-866-
873-1780.


KOHL'S DEP'T STORES: Appeals Court Revives False Ad Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Dolan, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
California retailers may be liable for large money awards if they
falsely advertise that their products are on sale.

A federal appeals court on May 21 revived a potential class-action
lawsuit alleging that Kohl's Department Stores Inc. misstated in
advertising that items had been marked down.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said California consumer
laws permit such lawsuits if the customer would not have made the
purchase but for the perceived bargain.

"Price advertisements matter," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a
three-judge panel.  "When a consumer purchases merchandise on the
basis of false price information and when the consumer alleges
that he would not have made the purchase but for the
misrepresentation, he has standing to sue."

Kohl's has denied the underlying allegations that its ads were
false or misleading.

Antonio S. Hinojos filed the lawsuit, alleging he would not have
made several purchases at Kohl's had he known the prices did not
represent actual markdowns.

Mr. Hinojos said he bought Samsonite luggage that was advertised
as 50% off its "original" price of $299.99, Chaps Solid Pique polo
shirts that were marked down 39% from their "original" price of
$36, and other items that were advertised as substantially reduced
in price.

The lawsuit, intended to be certified as a class action, was
dismissed by a lower court.  A U.S. District Court judge in Los
Angeles had ruled that Mr. Hinojos did not have the right, or
standing, to sue because he had not lost money as a result of the
alleged false advertising.

In overturning that decision, the 9th Circuit relied on a previous
California Supreme Court ruling that said consumers lose money if
they buy a product only because it was falsely advertised as made
in the U.S.

An attorney for Kohl's declined to comment.

Matthew Zevin, a lawyer for Mr. Hinojos, said the suit also is
seeking an order to prevent Kohl's from engaging in the alleged
practice in the future.

"The law is designed to protect consumers, and the decision will
give us our day in court," Mr. Zevin said.  "That is all we can
ask for, and I think that is appropriate."


MAGNUM HUNTER: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP on May 22 disclosed that it filed a class
action securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation common stock during the period
of May 3, 2012 through April 16, 2013, inclusive.

Magnum Hunter is an independent oil and gas company.  On April 16,
2013, Magnum Hunter disclosed that it had dismissed its auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, following it being advised of material
weaknesses in the Company's internal accounting controls.  PwC
identified issues having a material impact on the fairness or
reliability of Magnum Hunter's consolidated financial statements.
Dissemination of this news to public investors caused Magnum
Hunter shares to decline.

PwC disagreed with the Company's account of events and has stated
that it advised the Company it had concluded that the fairness and
reliability of the Company's consolidated financial statements
were questionable.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of buyers of Magnum
Hunter stock during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is represented by
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, the highly regarded and highly
experienced law firm specializing in securities cases.

As a member of the Class described above, you may (by not later
than June 24, 2013) move to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class.
If you choose to do nothing you simply remain an absent class
member with your sharing in a recovery unaffected by your
decision.  If you want to discuss this matter or represent your
interests at no cost or through your attorney, please contact our
San Diego office at 877-493-5366 (Michael Plavi), by fax to
619.238.5425, or via email at cmp@classaction.com

         FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK, LLP
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         E-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com


MERCK: Judge Allows Propecia Class Action in Canada to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Chaffin, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that
approved by the FDA in 1997, Propecia (finasteride) is prescribed
for the treatment of male pattern hair loss.  In recent years,
however, many men have complained of sexual side effects,
including persistent erectile dysfunction that continues even
after men stop taking the drug.

Now, a Canadian judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit
against drug maker Merck can continue in British Columbia.  The
lead plaintiff in the case, Michael Miller, claims that after
taking the medication, he suffered from lowered libido and
erectile dysfunction.  He blames Merck for failing to warn of the
risks for persistent sexual problems.

              Men Taking Proscar to Get Finasteride

Propecia contains one milligram of finasteride, which is also the
active drug in Proscar, a medication prescribed to men with benign
prostatic hyperplasia.  Though Proscar contains five milligrams of
finasteride, some men purchase it and divide it into five pieces
for a more economical alternative to buying Propecia.

Mr. Miller did just that when he was 25 years old. Following his
doctor's instructions, he divided Proscar into five sections and
took it to treat his male pattern baldness.  He claims that within
about a month, he started suffering from sexual side effects,
including a diminished sex drive and the inability to maintain an
erection.

Merck's original label in the U.S. noted that less than two
percent of men experienced sexual side effects in the trials
preceding the launch of the drug, but that these side effects
disappeared upon discontinuation of the medication.  They added
that for many men, the side effects disappeared as they continued
taking the medication.

Mr. Miller claims that stopping the medication didn't work for him
and that he continues to suffer sexual side effects today.

            Evidence of Lasting Propecia Side Effects

As early as 2008, Merck updated the warnings in Sweden to include
the fact that some men had reported persistent sexual side effects
after stopping Propecia.  But no such warnings were available in
the U.S. until 2011.  Warning labels in Canada for both Propecia
and Proscar noted that "so-called side effects" were "uncommon and
do not effect most men," but could include impotence, problems
with ejaculation and decreased semen. The labels did not indicate
these side effects could be lasting.

In November 2012, researchers published a study in the Journal of
Sexual Medicine showing that persistent sexual side effects
continued to be present in 96 percent of subjects after they had
stopped taking the medication.  "In most men who developed
persistent sexual side effects," the authors wrote, "despite
discontinuation of finasteride, the sexual dysfunction continued
for many months or years."

Mr. Miller claims he stopped taking Proscar in 2009, but does not
know when or if his sex drive will return.

            Lawsuits Continuing In Canada and the U.S.

Though certification on the British Columbia class action lawsuit
is still pending -- the judge still has to certify that all
plaintiffs share a common complaint -- this potential class action
may be on its way to trial in Canada.

Propecia lawsuits in the U.S. are still limited to individual
cases, though federal cases have been consolidated in the Eastern
District of New York.  State cases have also been centralized in
Middlesex County, New Jersey.


NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Faces Debt Collection Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
debt collection agency accused of hounding consumers for repayment
of debts not even owed is facing a class-action lawsuit stemming
from litigation originally filed May 3, 2007.  The allegations
contained in the lawsuit are eerily similar to previous complaints
archived in the defendant's file with The Better Business Bureau
(BBB) of New York.

                 Debt Collection Class Action

According to PRNewswire (5/3/13), Casey Joy of Tampa, Florida,
filed her action against North Shore Agency Inc., a subsidiary of
Outsourcing Solutions Inc.  The plaintiff alleges that North Shore
attempted to collect debts, together with the issuance of
collection letters, with regard to accounts and services the
plaintiff did not have, or want.

The class-action lawsuit further alleges that North Shore mailed,
en masse, threatening debt collection letters through the mail in
an attempt to harass and intimidate consumers into paying non-
existent debts.

This allegation is mirrored in the archived complaint reports of
North Shore Agency Inc. by the BBB.  While allowing the firm an
"A+" rating nonetheless, the BBB file as reflected online states,
"Complaints sent to the Better Business Bureau of New York state
that a collection agency called North Shore sends consumers
collection bill statements regarding money owed to companies that
consumers allege they are unaware of.  Some consumers' (sic)
stated that they received bills regarding subscription Magazines
(sic) and books from the collection agency and were told to pay
the full amount owed, however, according to consumers they never
subscribed to such companies.

"Consumers allege that when trying to contact North Shore to
resolve the issue, the company states that they owe the money and
must pay what's due on the account.  According to complaints, this
company is falsely accusing consumers of owing money to various
companies when in fact the information in their system is
incorrect, from name typos to accounts being wrong.

"Some consumer's (sic) allege that the company contacts them by
phone in an improper manner to explain the balance on their
accounts. After consumers get nowhere (sic) with the company, they
then contact the BBB to rectify the situation in which the company
then corrects the error and cancels consumers' subscriptions."

In her class-action lawsuit, plaintiff Casey Joy alleges the
collection practices carried out by the defendant are illegal and
violate the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, together
with Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the PRNewswire report, a common complaint amongst
consumers supports the BBB findings and surrounds the receipt of
collection letters for unwanted magazine subscriptions that have
not been duly initiated.  Thus, the money is not legally owed.
The lawsuit also states that collection letters fail to notify
customers as to the proper avenues to challenge the debt and the
collection effort, as required by law.

The report notes that the Better Business Bureau of New York
identified North Shore as having "a pattern of complaints" and as
having failed to correct the underlying causes for such
complaints.

The class-action lawsuit is Casey Joy, On Behalf of herself and
All Others Similarly Situated, vs. North Shore Agency, Inc. Case
No. 8:CV-00769-T-17EAJ.


ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Nix Digital Music Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
New York federal judge has declined to dismiss a proposed class
action lawsuit against, as he puts it, "the whole of the digital
music industry."

Norman Blagman is the named plaintiff and seeks to hold liable for
copyright infringement several powerhouse companies including
Apple, Amazon.com and Google.  The defendants in the lawsuit
sought to have the lawsuit dismissed for failure to state a
plausible claim, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter says not so
fast.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Blagman, the author of three musical
compositions, alleges that defendant Orchard Enterprises doesn't
require mechanical licenses in distributing audio and video
recordings and that the retail defendants haven't ensured that
compositions were properly licensed before distribution.  In
short, the plaintiff claims that the digital music industry is
circumventing traditional channels for licensing.

The defendants wanted to strike Mr. Blagman's claims as
"implausible," but the judge retorts "they reach too far."

Although there are tinges of skepticism from the judge about the
merits of the claims, the ruling says that Mr. Blagman has hurdled
past an issue like standing and should be given a chance to get
into the discovery stage.  The opinion also serves some comment on
another judge's recent decision to deny class certification in a
big lawsuit against YouTube.

"While it may be true that copyright claims are poor candidates
for class-action treatment," writes Judge Carter, citing the
YouTube case, "at least in this Circuit, a motion to strike class
claims is considered premature if the issues raised are the same
ones that would be decided in connection with determining the
appropriateness of class certification . . ."


PACIFIC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Broker Trust Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandi Soendker, writing for Land Line, reports that claiming
broker trust agreement violations, OOIDA and three plaintiffs
filed a class action complaint against Pacific Financial and
Federal Service Corp. in the Superior Court of the state of
Arizona in January.  The complaint asks for declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and damages.

The named plaintiffs are Thomas and Karen Moore, OOIDA members,
doing business as Moore Transportation; Jasmine LLC (owned by
OOIDA Member Leslie R. Hines); and K&S Trucking LLC (owned by
OOIDA Member Keith McDonald).  All hauled loads for a California
freight broker known as Alliance Transportation. When Alliance
failed to pay, these companies made claims to the broker's trust
funds, which were held by Pacific Financial as trustee.

To be a broker, the FMCSA requires a federal form for a broker MC#
called an OP-1, plus a filing for the broker's agents for service
of process.  That is called a BOC-3 and lists an address within
each state where legal paperwork may be served to the brokerage
and then forwarded to the broker.

The third requirement is a surety requirement.  Transportation
brokers must provide $10,000 in security per the FMCSA's current
requirement. The security requirement will increase to $75,000
later this year.

There are two ways to meet the FMCSA's requirements.  One is a
surety bond (BMC-84), and the other is a trust agreement (BMC-85).

To meet the trust requirement, brokers use the services of
corporations like Pacific Financial Association Inc.  Pacific
Financial claims to be the largest issuer of BMC-85s -- roker
trust agreements -- in the country.  Under BMC-85 agreements it is
the trustee of the funds held as security for the benefit of motor
carriers and of shippers doing business with the broker.

According to the complaint, in or about the fall of 2011, Alliance
stopped paying carriers who had moved freight for it, prompting
claims to be made against the trust.  However, Alliance -- a non-
party in the OOIDA complaint -- continued to contract for shipping
services. Sometime in October 2011, the claims in total exceeded
the available trust funds.  Pacific Financial paid no claims until
late May 2012 when it then paid all available funds to two motor
carriers.

The lawsuit alleges that despite pending claims against the trust,
Pacific Financial failed to alert anyone that the Alliance was
operating without being "effectively secured," including the
trucking companies moving the loads for Alliance.

Pacific Financial also failed to take steps to trigger Alliance's
duty to replenish the trust and waited several months before
serving notice to terminate the trust.

On Jan. 23, 2012, a notice of cancellation of the trust was sent
by Pacific Financial to FMCSA.  This was at least 96 days after
Pacific Financial allegedly knew that the aggregation of claims,
on a date of delivery basis, exceeded $10,000.

The trust was canceled on Feb. 22, 2012.  A week later FMCSA
revoked Alliance's authority to broker freight.

Alliance declared bankruptcy on April 10, 2012. According to
OOIDA's complaint, it listed more than 300 unsecured "non
priority" debts totaling approximately $1.2 million.  About 275 of
the unsecured debts were to motor carriers, including the
plaintiffs, that Alliance never paid for their services.

When Pacific Financial finally did make payment on two of the
pending claims on May 24, 2012, it exhausted the trust fund by
paying all of one claim and part of a second on a date-of-
delivery-basis.  All other claimants received nothing.

The complaint

OOIDA and the named plaintiffs claim that Pacific Financial failed
in its job to protect the interests of motor carriers who are the
beneficiaries of the broker's trust.  Plaintiffs claim it failed
to pay trust claims promptly, favored some trust beneficiaries
over others, engaged in conflicts of interest, and failed to
terminate the trust when claims exceeded available funds.

OOIDA is represented in the lawsuit by its Washington, DC,
counsel, The Cullen Law Firm.

"The gist of the complaint is that Pacific Financial, as a trustee
and fiduciary of the broker's trust, was duty-bound to protect
motor carriers, the beneficiaries of the trust," said Randall
Herrick-Stare, attorney with The Cullen Law Firm.  "Consistent
with a fiduciary's duty to protect beneficiaries it cannot sit
idly by when it has both notice of injury-causing behavior and the
capacity to block it.

"That means, when Pacific Financial became aware that Alliance was
causing damages to trust beneficiaries, it had a duty to act to
block its damaging conduct.  OOIDA alleges that, by not acting to
terminate the Alliance trust -- a condition of its FMCSA license
-- and by not promptly paying claims -- thereby triggering a duty
to replenish the trust -- Pacific Financial allowed Alliance to
continue to operate under the illusion of propriety when it was
effectively unsecured."

Mr. Herrick-Stare said by not warning motor carriers considering
doing business with Alliance that claims Pacific Financial had
already received exhausted its security, Pacific Financial left
motor carriers in the dark, without information necessary to
protect themselves.

"The result was exposure of motor carriers to breach of contract
damages with no recourse to mandatory security," said Mr. Herrick-
Stare.  "It is alleged that by being too long passive, Pacific
Financial undermined the fundamental purpose of broker security."

What do plaintiffs want?

OOIDA and the plaintiffs are asking that the civil action be
certified as a class action and for an award of compensatory
damages to the plaintiffs and the class, plus punitive damages.
OOIDA serves as representative for its members and does not seek
damages for itself.

The proposed class members are approximately 275 motor carriers
who contracted with Alliance Transportation, who didn't get paid,
and who are listed in the schedules of Alliance's bankruptcy
petition.  The damages incurred by each class member are the
amounts invoiced but not paid during the time Alliance was
"effectively unsecured," a time that would have been shorter if
Pacific Financial had acted promptly to terminate the trust when
claims exceeded $10,000.  OOIDA's complaint estimates the total
value of the unpaid invoices to be more than $1 million.

"Pacific Financial is not registered with either California or
Arizona as a trust company but presents itself as being in the
trust business," said Mr. Herrick-Stare.  "OOIDA's complaint asks
for an order declaring that Pacific Financial is in the 'trust
business' and asks for an injunction prohibiting Pacific Financial
from entering into any more BMC-85 trust agreements until it has
successfully registered as a trust company with Arizona and
California authorities."

Because of the potential conflict of interest, OOIDA also is
asking for an injunction prohibiting Pacific Financial from
lending to prospective brokers the money to fund their trusts and
at the same time serving as the trustee of those same funds.

Current status

OOIDA and the plaintiffs filed the suit in January in the Superior
Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County.  The defendants
removed the case to the Federal District Court predicated on their
statement that OOIDA's case was about brokers or carriers, which
might pose a federal question.

On April 11, OOIDA's attorneys filed a motion to remand the case
back to the state court.  They argued the case is "not an action
against a broker.  It is an action against a trustee.  For that
reason alone, there is no 'inconsistency' between the laws of
Arizona governing the fiduciary duties of trustees and any federal
laws regarding the duties of brokers."

The parties are currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona on the remand issue.


RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Trial in Securities Suit in November
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on May 21 announced a significant victory by
investors in the Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation investor
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in Santa Ana.

On May 20, 2013 the Court resolved motions for summary judgment
filed by defendants Radient, Douglas MacLellan and Akio Ariura.
The Court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact
as to whether Radient and MacLellan committed securities fraud and
denied their motions for summary judgment.  The Court granted
Mr. Ariura's motion and he is no longer a defendant.

This is a significant victory because it means that Court found
that based on the evidence there are issues of fact that should be
heard by a jury.  The jury trial is scheduled to commence on
November 12, 2013.

The action was originally filed in March 2011 and seeks to recover
losses suffered by all purchasers of Radient common stock between
January 18, 2011 and March 4, 2011, inclusive.  Plaintiffs assert
that on January 18, 2011 Radient issued a materially false and
misleading press release by falsely touting the prestigious Mayo
Clinic's involvement in a clinical trial for Radient's product
Onko-Sure.  According to the complaint, when the market learned
the truth that the Mayo Clinic was not involved in the Onko-Sure
clinical trial as Radient represented, the price of Radient common
stock declined damaging investors.

If you have information pertinent to this action or would like to
learn more about these claims, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

                 Laurence Rosen, Esq.
                 Phillip Kim, Esq.
                 The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
                 275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
                 New York, New York 10016
                 Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
                 Weekends Telephone: (917) 797-4425
                 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
                 Fax: (212) 202-3827
                 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                         pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Data Breach Class Action Removed to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that a St. Clair County class action lawsuit over a
security breach to Schnuck Markets' electronic payment systems has
been removed to federal court.

Schnucks filed a notice to remove the suit that Laverne Rippy
brought April 25 in St. Clair County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The grocery store chain asserts that the federal court has
jurisdiction over the suit because diversity of citizenship
between the parties exists, the amount in controversy is more than
$5 million and the proposed class exceeds 100 members.

Ms. Rippy's lawsuit stems from a well-publicized security breach
that may have compromised the credit and debit card information of
millions of Schnucks' customers between December 2012 and March
2013.

In a timeline previously released to the media, Schnucks said it
found out about the issue on March 15, formed a response team on
March 19, contacted police on March 20, and began to identify the
problem on March 28.  It communicated its concerns to the public
on March 30.

The grocery store chain has said that only card numbers and
expiration dates were stolen, not cardholders' names, addresses or
anything else.

Ms. Rippy claims in her suit that the breach not only compromised
her information, but also forced her and other members of the
proposed class to spend hours canceling their compromised cards,
activating replacement cards and re-establishing automatic
withdrawal payment authorizations.

The suit, which seeks damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleges that Schnucks failed
to timely disclose the security breach to its customers, a
violation of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act.

Ms. Rippy's suit proposed a class that would include Illinois
plaintiffs who shopped at Schnucks' Illinois locations five years
preceding the data breach.

In the removal notice, Schnucks asserts that the federal court has
jurisdiction over the suit because diversity of citizenship exists
between the parties as it is a Missouri corporation and Ms. Rippy
is an Illinois resident.

Schnucks also states in its notice that the suit meets the other
requirements for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act in
that the size of the proposed class is more than 100 members and
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

"Schnucks has determined that criminals hacked into its electronic
payment systems at 23 stores located in Illinois," the removal
notice states.  "Schnucks has further determined that
approximately 1,600,000 credit or debit card transactions took
place at these Illinois stores during the relevant period."

An analysis of these transactions, the notice states, showed that
about 500,000 unique credit and debit cards were used during the
relevant time period and as such, "based on plaintiff's
allegations, the proposed putative class has at least 500,000
members."

In regards to the amount in controversy, Schnucks asserts that the
"Plaintiff and the putative class member's potential 'time and
effort' damages alone satisfy the $5 million amount in controversy
requirement."

Belleville attorney Russell K. Scott represents Schnucks and
submitted the removal notice on its behalf.

St. Louis attorney Jeffrey A. Millar represents Rippy and the
proposed class.  Mr. Millar on May 20 filed a motion for leave to
file a first amended complaint and a request for admissions.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Lerners Discusses Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Domenico Magisano, Esq., and Jason Squire, Esq. at Lerners report
that when public companies are accused of accounting
irregularities, class action shareholder litigation often follows.
The case of Sino-Forest Corporation is such an example.  Weighed
down by allegations of accounting irregularities and the class
action lawsuits that followed, SFC sought and obtained court
protection pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act on
March 30, 2012.

While the CCAA proceeding stayed the class proceedings as against
SFC, there were still many other defendants that remained,
including SFC's auditors and underwriters.  As the litigation
against these other parties proceeded, the question was, who would
bear the SFC liability in these class action claims? Would it be:
the plaintiffs who would have one fewer defendant to which they
could apportion liability; SFC's co-defendants under the concept
of joint and several liability; or a combination of both?

This was the question before the Ontario Court of Appeal in its
first review of the 2009 amendments to the CCAA relating to
"equity claims".

                      Litigation History

In 2011 it was alleged that SFC had misrepresented its asset
holdings and financial position, resulting in an artificial
inflation of the share price.  Four class proceedings followed,
all of which named SFC and some of which named various
underwriters and SFC's auditors during the relevant time period
(BDO Limited and Ernst & Young LLP).  The underwriter and auditor
defendants cross-claimed against SFC for contribution and
indemnity.  In some cases, the contribution and indemnity claims
were rooted in the underwriting agreements and audit engagement
letters SFC had made representations about its financial condition
to its underwriters and auditors, and had given contractual
indemnities for their reliance on that information.  Other
contribution and indemnity claims against SFC were based on
traditional common law and Negligence Act claims.

After the CCAA Filing, the Superior Court approved a claims
procedure.  Many of SFC's co-defendants submitted proofs of claim
and the Monitor of SFC sought advice and directions from the court
regarding whether the co-defendants' contribution and indemnity
claims were "equity claims" as defined by the CCAA.

Section 6(8) of the CCAA subordinates all equity claims:

No compromise or arrangement that provides for the payment of an
equity claim is to be sanctioned by the court unless it provides
that all claims that are not equity claims are to be paid in full
before the equity claim is to be paid.

In order to define "equity claim" under the CCAA, one must turn to
section 2(1) of the CCAA which states that an equity claim is:

a claim that is in respect of an equity interest, including a
claim for, among others,

a) a dividend or similar payment,

b) a return of capital,

c) a redemption or retraction obligation,

d) a monetary loss resulting from the ownership, purchase or sale
of an equity interest or from the rescission, or, in Quebec, the
annulment, of a purchase or sale of an equity interest, or

e) contribution or indemnity in respect of a claim referred to in
any of paragraphs (a) to (d)

At first instance, Justice Mowawetz held that the auditors' and
underwriters' contribution and indemnity claims against SFC were
not general claims, but were "equity claims" under the CCAA.
Justice Morawetz held that "it would be totally inconsistent to
arrive at a conclusion that would enable either the auditors or
the underwriters, through a claim for indemnification, to be
treated as creditors when the underlying actions of the
shareholders cannot achieve the same status".

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  The Ontario
Court of Appeal engaged in a careful statutory interpretation
exercise and found that the plain meaning of "equity claim" in the
CCAA subordinated the auditors' and underwriters' contribution and
indemnity claims below general claims -- that is, the auditors'
and underwriters' claims ranked with the claims of shareholders,
below the claims of SFC's general unsecured creditors (and
particularly SFC's unsecured noteholders).

                  Effect on Shareholder Disputes

It is difficult to dispute the court's interpretation of the CCAA
provisions in question.  However, one must wonder if this outcome
is what legislators really intended.  The outcome of the decision
prevents cross-claimants in a class action suit from having a
higher priority to its co-defendant's assets than that available
to the plaintiff shareholders; however, the effect is to cause
solvent defendants to shoulder a much larger portion of the
monetary loss because of the operation of joint and several
liability.  The auditors and underwriters face potential joint and
several liability for representations of a public company, but
cannot seek recovery from its insolvent co-defendant.  The effect
is not abstract -- it cannot be a coincidence that, within a few
days of the release of the Court of Appeal's reasons confirming
that the auditors and underwriters could not make a general claim
on SFC's estate, one auditor announced a tentative settlement with
the class of $117 million.

Professional auditors and underwriters are obviously key to the
operation of capital markets.  The risk that those professionals
may have to effectively stand as insurers against the insolvency
of issuers may increase their fees or cause them to be reticent to
provide their services.  On the other hand, causing them to bear
greater potential risk of misrepresentations that can cause
insolvency of issuers may arguably cause auditors and underwriters
to heighten their diligence.

Perhaps the way to resolve the tension is for Parliament to create
a statutory version of a Pierrenger Agreement between the parties
where there is a dispute that gives rise to equity claims under
the CCAA.  Put differently, if a co-defendant in a shareholder
dispute obtains CCAA protection, the plaintiff and the remaining
defendants would treat the insolvent defendant as having entered
into a de facto Pierrenger Agreement, and each liable defendant
would be severally, not jointly, liable for each of their
proportionate share of liability to the plaintiff.


ST. CROIX: Ruling May Have Impact on Environmental Mass Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Thomson Reuters' Alison Frankel, "the doctrine of
strict textualism -- in which judicial decisions are compelled
solely by statutory language -- has always reminded me of what my
father, an internist, used to say about overeager surgeons: When
your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail.  And when
your only judicial philosophy is textualism, every case is a
matter of words."  Simple enough, right? Wrong.  Consider a ruling
on May 17 by a three-judge panel at the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals that turned on the definition of "an event or occurrence."

The issue for the 3rd Circuit was removal to federal court of a
mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act.  As you probably
recall, Congress passed CAFA in 2005 with the express intention of
steering most class actions out of state court and into the
federal system.  CAFA also mandated that mass actions involving
parallel claims by 100 or more individual plaintiffs be litigated
in federal court, with a couple of exceptions.  One of the
exceptions holds that strictly local controversies may remain in
state court, even if more than 100 plaintiffs have sued.  To meet
CAFA's criteria for that exception, cases must assert claims that
all "arise from an event or occurrence in the state in which the
action was filed, and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that
state or in states contiguous to that state."

There's not much ambiguity in defining state borders, but what
about in delineating the time frame of an event? Was, say, the
Civil War a single event or a collection of battles and political
actions that each represent a unique event? In the case before the
3rd Circuit, more than 400 current and former residents of St.
Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands claimed to have been injured by
St. Croix Renaissance Group's supposed failure to clean up toxic
waste piles at a former alumina refinery SCRG purchased in 2002.
St. Croix, which is in the business of redeveloping contaminated
properties, never operated the refinery and has spent years in
cleanup-cost litigation with a former owner of the site and
others.  But the plaintiffs said in filings in territorial court
(the Virgin Islands equivalent of state court) that asbestos and
other hazardous chemicals from the abandoned refinery were
meanwhile swirling around St. Croix and damaging their health.

SCRG removed their suits to federal court as a mass action under
CAFA.  The plaintiffs moved for remand to the territorial court
under the local controversy exception; SCRG's lawyer, Carl
Hartmann countered that the plaintiffs' suits didn't involve "an
event or occurrence."  In December, U.S. District Judge Harvey
Bartle of Philadelphia sided with the plaintiffs, finding that 10
years of supposedly continuous contamination can be construed as
"an event" for CAFA jurisdictional purposes.  "We think that an
event, as used in CAFA, encompasses a continuing tort which
results in a regular or continuous release of toxic or hazardous
chemicals, as allegedly is occurring here, and where there is no
superseding occurrence or significant interruption that breaks the
chain of causation," Judge Bartle wrote.  "A very narrow
interpretation of the word 'event' as advocated by SCRG would
undermine the intent of Congress to allow the state or territorial
courts to adjudicate claims involving truly localized
environmental torts with localized injuries."

SCRG asked the 3rd Circuit for an expedited review, which was
granted.  In its appellate brief, the company argued (among other
things) that Judge Bartle's definition of an event was at odds
with that of the 9th Circuit in Nevada v. Bank of America, which
is the only federal appellate ruling on this question.  In a brief
in response, the plaintiffs' appellate counsel at Public Justice
said several district courts have held that ongoing contamination
is a single event, and that the legislative history of CAFA shows
that Congress included the local controversy exception
specifically to permit environmental tort claims to be litigated
in state court.

The 3rd Circuit panel of Judges Thomas Ambro, Brooks Smith and
Michael Chagares said that SCRG's argument wasn't "completely
devoid of merit" because Congress chose to use singular forms of
"event" and "occurrence" in CAFA's local exception provision.  But
the panel said that under the ordinary meaning of the words (and
without any time limits specified in the statute), an event or
occurrence can be a collective set of circumstances, such as
continuing contamination.  The 3rd Circuit said it didn't even
have to consider the legislative history of CAFA to reach that
determination.

SCRG has already filed a notice of its intention to seek review
from the U.S. Supreme Court, which demonstrated its interest in
CAFA jurisdictional tussles earlier this year in Standard Fire v.
Knowles.  SCRG counsel Hartmann told Ms. Frankel in an interview
that the company was surprised by the 3rd Circuit's decision
because the issue seems to be much more complicated than the
appellate opinion suggests, given the 9th Circuit's holding in the
Nevada case.  Moreover, he said, the ruling could have broad
implications in environmental mass actions.  "This is going to
take all those cases and move them to state court," he said.
"It's clear this court wants to push cases out of federal court
and into state court.  We don't think that's what Congress
intended."

Public interest groups, however, are cheering the opinion.  Leah
Nicholls of Public Justice, who argued at the 3rd Circuit for the
St. Croix plaintiffs and called the decision "groundbreaking" in a
blog post, told me that the 3rd Circuit "quite reasonably said
it's not inconsistent to say in this case that continuous and
ongoing conduct is a single event or occurrence."  According to
Ms. Nicholls, the facts here -- which involved the impact of
supposedly ongoing contamination at one site -- were quite
different from those before the 9th Circuit in the Nevada case, in
which a state attorney general brought a wide-ranging parens
patriae action involving BofA's alleged deception about mortgage
modification and foreclosure practices.  "This is local residents
suing over a local facility," Ms. Nicholls said.


STANDARD FIRE: Mitchell Silberberg Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin E. Gaut, Esq., and Amr Shabaik, Esq., at Mitchell Silberberg
& Knupp LLP report that in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles,
a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that class action
plaintiffs cannot avoid federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") merely by stipulating that total
class damages will not exceed $5 million.  The decision is a
victory for defendants who often prefer that class actions be
decided in federal court.

Congress enacted CAFA in 2005 to ensure federal jurisdiction for
many class actions involving significant amounts in controversy.
Subject to certain exceptions, CAFA provides federal jurisdiction
over class actions where the class has more than 100 members; the
parties are minimally diverse (generally meaning that at least one
plaintiff resides in a different state than at least one
defendant); and the aggregate amount in controversy for all class
members exceeds $5 million.

Knowles addressed whether a plaintiff could avoid having his
lawsuit removed to federal court pursuant to CAFA merely by
stipulating that the class will not seek damages in excess of $5
million.  Plaintiff Greg Knowles sought to represent a class
consisting of hundreds, and possibly thousands, of persons
allegedly denied payments under homeowners insurance policies
issued by Standard Fire Insurance Company.  Mr. Knowles alleged in
his complaint that "Plaintiff and Class stipulate they will seek
to recover total aggregate damages of less than five million
dollars."  Mr. Knowles limited his class to Arkansas residents.

The defendant removed the case to federal district court under
CAFA. Knowles sought remand, contending that the case did not meet
the $5 million CAFA jurisdictional prerequisite.  The district
court found that the amount in controversy for Mr. Knowles'
sizeable class would, absent the stipulation, exceed $5 million.
However, it nevertheless held Mr. Knowles' stipulation sufficient
to bar federal jurisdiction.  The Eighth Circuit refused
defendant's appeal, and the Supreme Court granted review.

The Supreme Court held the stipulation insufficient to bar CAFA
jurisdiction, for two reasons.  First, the stipulation was not
binding on the class before certification: "[A] plaintiff who
files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the
proposed class before the class is certified."  Thus, Mr. Knowles'
precertification stipulation bound only Knowles and could not
affect the value of the claims of the class Knowles purported to
represent.

Second, the Supreme Court held that ruling in Mr. Knowles' favor
would "exalt form over substance and run directly counter to
CAFA's primary objective: ensuring 'Federal court consideration of
interstate cases of national importance.'"  Such a ruling would
conflict with CAFA's purpose by, in effect, "allowing the
subdivision of a single $100 million action into 21 just-below $5
million state-court actions simply by including nonbinding
stipulations."

Knowles confirms the clear terms of the CAFA and closes the
loophole Knowles attempted to invoke.  The decision helps prevent
state-court class action abuses by confirming, as Congress
intended, federal jurisdiction for certain large class actions.

Q:     Does Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles pose any
potential negative drawbacks for employers?

A:     Overall, the Knowles decision is a significant win for
employers as it keeps large class actions in federal court, a
forum that is often more favorable for employers.  However,
plaintiffs now have little incentive to limit their damage claims
by committing to a cap on damages to stay out of federal court.
Furthermore, the Knowles decision probably will not lead to a
sharp decline in class action filings, as plaintiffs may simply
file in federal court if their case meets the requirements for
federal jurisdiction.


US NURSING: Littler Mendelson Discusses Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara A. Gross, Esq., at Littler Mendelson reports that despite
the recent trend of successes in decertifying wage and hour class
actions in healthcare and other sectors, the number of lawsuits
seeking to certify class actions in the healthcare industry
continues to grow.  As a result, Littler Mendelson also continues
to see settlement of these costly and time consuming lawsuits.  In
one recent case, U.S. Nursing Corp. has agreed to pay $1.77
million to quickly settle claims that it failed to pay the
replacement registered nurses that it provided to hospitals during
labor strikes for the all-too common claims of wages owed for
travel time and automatic meal period deductions.  The nurses also
claimed that they should have been paid daily, rather than weekly.
The settlement was filed for preliminary approval on May 2, 2013,
and a hearing to preliminarily approve the settlement is scheduled
for June 6, 2013. (Bolton v. U.S. Nursing Corp., N.D. Cal., No.
3:12-cv-04466).

In the suit, Shameka Bolton asserts that U.S. Nursing did not pay
the replacement nurses for the time they spent traveling from
their hotels to the hospitals.  Ms. Bolton also asserts a claim
that U.S. Nursing was automatically deducting for a 30 minute meal
period each day, a claim that is extremely common in many of the
suits against healthcare employers. Finally, the suit alleges that
under California law, the nurses should have been paid daily,
rather than weekly.

Interestingly, the settlement was reached quickly after the case
was first filed in July 2012 in California state court and then
removed to federal court in the Northern District of California in
August 2012.  By February 2013, the case was referred to private
alternative dispute resolution.  The settlement comes before any
motions for conditional certification under the FLSA or state
class certification have been filed.

The settlement covers a group of more than 2,500 nurses who were
paid by U.S. Nursing to work at various hospitals in Northern and
Central California during labor strikes starting in 2008.  In
addition, the settlement includes a subclass of nearly 500
employees for meal period deduction claims.


VENTRUS BIOSCIENCES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2013, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed the first
class action complaint on behalf of those persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Ventrus Biosciences, Inc.
securities between December 17, 2010 and June 25, 2012, inclusive.
The action, pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Ventrus securities during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the
Court no later than July 8, 2013.  Any member of the investor
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Based in New York, New York, Ventrus, a Delaware corporation, is a
development stage pharmaceutical company which is focused on late-
stage prescription drugs for the treatment of gastrointestinal
disorders, specifically hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal
incontinence.  Ventrus' lead products are topical treatments for
hemorrhoids, which target a specific serotonin receptor.

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the
Company's lead product iferanserin (VEN 309).  The Company
described VEN 309 as a new chemical entity for the topical
treatment of symptomatic internal hemorrhoids.  The Company stated
that in seven clinical studies between 1993 and 2003, VEN 309
demonstrated good tolerability and no severe adverse events while
showing statistically significant improvements in bleeding,
itchiness, and pain.

Specifically, during the Class Period, the Company touted that it
was in frequent and ongoing communications with the FDA, that
clinical end points for the VEN 309 trial had been agreed to by
the FDA, and that the prior results from Phase II trials of VEN
309 demonstrated the product's clinical efficacy.  The Company
represented its prior Phase IIb studies in Germany as evidence of
VEN 309's efficacy and as support for its claims that FDA approval
would be achieved.  These false and misleading statements
artificially inflated, maintained, and increased the price of
Ventrus' common stock, reaching a high of $20.25 during the Class
Period.

On June 25, 2012, Ventrus shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that VEN 309 failed its Phase III trial
before the FDA, and that the Company would suddenly abandon
further development of VEN 309, including any further attempt to
obtain FDA approval.  In response to this news, the price of
Ventrus common stock plummeted over 50% -- to $5.02 per share on
June 25, 2012, resulting in millions of dollars in damages to
investors.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

CONTACT: Michael Burnett, Esq.
         Scott+Scott LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
                 mburnett@scott-scott.com


VISA INC: NRF Opts Out of Swipe Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hardekopf, writing for LowCards.com, reports that the
National Retail Federation and 19 large retailers, including
WalMart, Costco, Gap, Lowe's, Nike and Starbucks are choosing not
to participate in the pending $7.2 billion class-action settlement
with Visa and MasterCard over interchange fees.  These retailers
will be forfeiting their share of this monetary settlement.

The retailers are opposing the settlement because they feel it
won't keep swipe fees from increasing in the future.  In addition,
if they participate in the settlement, they would be restricted
from taking any future legal action for anti-competitive behavior.

The proposed agreement was reached in July 2012 when MasterCard,
Visa and major banks agreed to pay more than $6 billion to resolve
accusations that they engaged in anti-competitive practices and
price fixing in payment processing.  In addition, credit card
companies agreed to reduce swipe fees for eight months, an
adjustment valued at $1.2 billion.

Retailers had until May 28 to opt out of the proposed settlement.
The terms of the proposed settlement says that retailers who do
not opt out by the deadline will automatically be considered to
accept the settlement.  Those who accept the settlement are
eligible for a share of the settlement but must give up the right
to file future lawsuits over the fees and other restrictive rules.

The NRF says this amount is less than three months' worth of swipe
fee charges, and the small retailers hit hardest by the fees would
give up their rights for as little as a few hundred dollars.

"The proposed settlement does nothing to bring swipe fees under
control and would give Visa and MasterCard a legal blessing to
continue their abuse of merchants and consumers indefinitely," NRF
Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mallory Duncan said in a
statement.  "No settlement at all would be better than this one-
sided 'agreement' written by the card companies for the card
companies that would tie retailers' hands for decades to come."

A hearing on final approval is scheduled for September 12.


WAL-MART STORES: Several Retailers Opt Out of Card Fee Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that several large retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
Costco Wholesale Corp. and Starbucks Corp. are opting out of a
pending class-action settlement with Visa Inc. and MasterCard
Inc., potentially setting the stage for more battles over
transaction-processing fees.

The merchants say the pending deal, reached last summer, won't
stop so-called swipe fees from rising and violates their legal
rights by preventing them from bringing legal action against the
credit-card networks for alleged anticompetitive behavior in the
future.

"If this settlement is approved, it would allow credit-card
companies and big banks to perpetuate an unfair and broken system
that costs all consumers, including those who don't even have a
credit or debit card," Mike Cook, senior vice president of finance
and assistant treasurer for Wal-Mart, said on May 21.

The 19 companies, which also include Gap Inc., Lowe's Cos., Nike
Inc., 7-Eleven Inc. and Alon Brands Inc., said they are objecting
to and opting out of the settlement.  They also are considering
"additional legal action to recover damages from Visa and
MasterCard under U.S. antitrust laws," according to a statement
from the group.

By opting out, the retailers forfeit their right to monetary
payments set to go to merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard
credit cards.

Separately, the National Retail Federation, a Washington, D.C.-
based trade group, said on May 21 it also plans to object to and
opt out of the settlement.

The move comes a week before a court deadline to object to and opt
out of the deal, which was announced last July.  Judge John
Gleeson of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted preliminary
approval to the settlement in November, and a hearing on final
approval is scheduled for Sept. 12.

A MasterCard spokesman said on May 21 the company was confident
the court would grant final approval to the settlement.  A
spokesman for Visa declined to comment.

Supporters of the deal have previously argued its critics have
misconstrued the terms of the settlement in an effort to drum up
support for legislation that could permanently limit credit-card
swipe fees.

Wal-Mart and other retailers in 2010 successfully lobbied for
federal legislation known as the Durbin amendment, which cut in
half the amount of fees merchants pay to accept debit cards.  The
provision did not affect credit-card swipe fees.

Trish Wexler, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Payments Coalition,
which represents Visa, MasterCard and large banks, said on May 21
the complaints made by Wal-Mart and the other merchants were
already raised during the course of the litigation.

"Had these arguments had any merit or strength, they would have
been included in the final settlement," Ms. Wexler said.  "We
remain fully confident that this will have no material impact on
the settlement's final approval in the fall."

If approved, the settlement would deliver up to $6.05 billion to
as many as eight million merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard
credit cards.  The defendants have also agreed to temporarily
lower swipe fees, also known as interchange rates, by an amount
equal to $1.2 billion.

Some changes have already been made as a result of the settlement.
For example, Visa and MasterCard in January eliminated rules that
previously prohibited merchants from tacking on an extra fee to
customers who pay with a credit card.

The deal is intended to put to rest litigation filed against Visa,
MasterCard and several large banks that issue the payment
networks' credit cards, including Bank of America Corp., J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and Capital One Financial Corp.

The suits, filed by merchants and trade groups, alleged that the
defendants conspired to set transaction fees -- which retailers
pay each time a customer pays with a credit card -- at arbitrarily
high levels.  The fees are set by Visa and MasterCard and
collected by the banks that issue their cards as revenue.

But the settlement has drawn heated opposition from several trade
groups, including named plaintiffs in the suits, as well as some
large merchants.  The opponents, who want to derail the deal,
argue the amount being paid is a drop in the bucket compared with
the amount of interchange fees they've paid over the years.

They also argue that the deal strips them of their right to due
process by not allowing them to opt out of the rule changes, which
apply to all merchants regardless of whether they opt out of the
settlement.

Craig Wildfang, an attorney with Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
LLP, which is representing the class of merchants in the case and
helped negotiate the settlement, said he didn't expect that the
retailers' announcement on May 21 would affect the judge's
analysis of the settlement.

"The class is not surprised by the announcement [Tues]day by these
19 merchants," Mr. Wildfang said.  "All of them have been vocal in
their expressing their dissatisfaction with the settlement for
reasons that we disagree with."


YELP: Small Claims Court Ruling in Advertising Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gara, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
in San Diego this April, a $2,700 judgment was made against Yelp,
and there was also a re-airing of allegations -- rejected by a
U.S. District judge in late 2011 -- that businesses are pressured
to advertise with Yelp at the threat of lowered visibility on its
site.  Yelp fought -- and won -- a potential class action lawsuit
over similar claims beginning in 2010.

According to a transcript of the hearing, their re-emergence in a
San Diego court in April was followed by the judge describing
Yelp's advertising contract as "the modern-day version of the
mafia going to stores and saying, "You wanna not be bothered?"

The case will be taken to a higher court on appeal.

The McMillan Law Group, which brought the claim against Yelp,
agreed to an advertising deal with the site after it had become "a
good source of new clients for us," said attorney Julian McMillan,
representing his firm in the court.  The deal involved the firm
paying Yelp $540 per month in return for 1,200 ad impressions per
month on the site. An impression is counted each time an ad is
displayed to a user.

Mr. McMillan claimed Yelp did not deliver the 1,200 monthly
impressions, leading to his firm cancelling the contract and
asking for its money back.  The site's representative in the
court, Bradley Bohensky, said the claim was based on a
misunderstanding of how such impressions are measured, and that
Yelp in fact "over delivered" on the ad impressions promised.

On top of the dispute over ad impressions, Mr. McMillan raised the
allegation -- not part of his claim against Yelp -- that after
cancelling the advertising contract with the company, the
visibility of his business and its positive reviews declined on
the site.

That claim has been raised against the company many times in the
past, and was declared a "typical Yelp conspiracy theory" by the
site's CEO, Jeremy Stoppleman, in a 2010 response to such
allegations.  But Mr. McMillan told the Wall Street Journal on
May 21 that he plans on filing a separate complaint against the
company over the allegation.

In the end, much of the judgment in the San Diego court rested on
the judge's decision that Yelp's contract with the law firm -- a
standard agreement it makes with advertisers -- was a "contract of
adhesion", a legal term for a contract that heavily favors one
party over the other and whose terms are not freely negotiated
between the two.  The terms of the contract, Judge Doft said, were
"unfair and one sided."

"Every single bit of settled law is twisted around by this
contract," the judge said.  "Everything is twisted around."

Vince Sollitto, Yelp's Vice President of Corporate Communications,
told the WSJ on May 21 the judgment of the small-claims court was
"completely at odds and atypical with other rulings."  The
plaintiff, he said, "misstated the facts repeatedly to the judge,
who in turn appeared to ignore both the actual facts in front of
him and the applicable law."  An appeal against the judgment will
take place in "a more experienced court where lawyers from both
sides can argue facts not opinion, and expect a ruling based on
actual facts," he added.

In the hearing, Judge Doft declined a request by Mr. McMillan for
a written ruling, saying his court was too busy for the "luxury of
writing out decisions."  And decisions like his, he said, won't
make "a bucket of spit's difference in what happens" in the appeal
of the case, because appeals against small claims court rulings do
not consider the previous hearings and are considered new trials.

But Mr. McMillan relishes the prospect of a new trial, which may
help drive business to his bankruptcy law firm.  In a recent blog
post addressing other small businesses that may have disputes with
Yelp, he hailed his "massive victory" against the site.  "We can
help you get your hard earned money back," he wrote, adding, for
good measure, his phone number for those who may wish to call and
discuss their complaints.


* Product Liability Class Action Resurgence Expected in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moira Saville, Esq., Mandi Jacobson, Esq., and Katrina Geddes,
Esq. at King & Wood Mallesons report that a resurgence in product
liability class actions has been predicted in Australia since May
2012.  Since then, new class actions have been filed in relation
to Bonsoy soy milk, dopamine agonists, transvaginal mesh, hip
implants and knee implants, among others.  Some of these follow
similar actions taken overseas, such as proceedings brought
against DePuy in relation to its hip implants in the United States
and against the manufacturers of dopamine agonists in multiple
countries.

In line with this trend, two product liability class actions have
recently been settled in Australia -- a class action concerning
faulty knee implants manufactured by DePuy and a case brought
against Merck in relation to its VIOXX arthritis drug (although
the latter still requires court approval under Section 33V of the
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)).

                  DePuy Knee Implant Class Action

In December 2012 DePuy reached a settlement for a class action
concerning faulty knee implants distributed in Australia. The
proceedings brought against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson alleged
that:

   -- the implants were not reasonably fit for the purpose for
which they were supplied, within the meaning of Section 74B of the
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth);

   -- the implants were not of merchantable quality, as required
by Section 74D of the act; and

   -- DePuy was negligent in manufacturing the implants.

The settlement was approved by Justice Buchanan of the Federal
Court on December 4 2012.

It was discovered that some of DePuy's knee implants contained
alumina particles that wore down articulating surfaces of the knee
to a greater extent than the superficial wear ordinarily observed
in well-functioning knee prostheses.  Where it occurred, this
situation reflected what the lead applicant, Pamela Casey,
submitted was a "superadded risk of failure" of the implants.  The
implants were recalled in Australia in late July 2009, seven
months after the lead applicant had already been fitted with an
implant, requiring further surgery.

The parties negotiated two protocols to settle the class action:

   -- the compensation protocol; and

   -- the liability protocol, which required the establishment of
an expert panel of surgeons to act as assessors.

It was agreed that claims for compensation should be assessed by
reference to criteria set out in the liability protocol, the
overarching criterion being that compensation would be paid "if it
is more likely than not that alumina particles from an Affected
Implant caused Abnormal Wear (the Characteristic)".  'Abnormal
wear' of the articulating surfaces in the knee was defined as that
which exceeded "wear that would generally be expected in a total
knee replacement prosthesis that had been implanted for a
comparable period of time".

As part of the settlement, compensation to eligible group members
for non-economic loss and gratuitous care was to be awarded in
accordance with four categories:

   -- Group members who underwent one corrective procedure
consequent on the affected implant, but required no further
surgery, would be awarded A$30,000 in compensation;

   -- Group members who had undergone one revision plus one other
surgical procedure consequent on the affected implant would be
awarded A$40,000;

   -- Group members who had undergone one revision plus two or
three other surgical procedures consequent on the affected implant
would be awarded A$65,000; and

   -- Group members who had undergone one revision plus four or
more other surgical procedures consequent on the affected implant
would be individually assessed.

Discounts to compensation were also to be applied in the case of
bilateral revision surgery as, among other things, the overall
recovery period would likely be less than if a group member had
undergone separate revision surgeries.  Additionally, the
compensation protocol provided for compensation to be paid to the
estates of deceased group members.  Compensation payable for
financial losses, including out-of-pocket expenses and economic
loss, was to be assessed under Part VIB of the Trade Practices
Act.(6) Justice Buchanan agreed with expert legal opinion that the
settlement:

"represents an appropriate balancing of the interests of the group
members who will be entitled to compensation against the prospects
for achieving a litigated outcome, and the risks involved in
failure of such litigation."

In particular, he praised the protection afforded to group members
who wished to take action against the respondents but were
assessed as ineligible for compensation under the liability
protocol as they did not exhibit 'abnormal wear'.  For group
members lacking this characteristic, the settlement as originally
proposed would have extinguished their rights against the
respondents.  However, the final amended settlement agreement
preserved their right to commence, continue or take any action,
claim or proceeding against the respondents for "any other alleged
mechanism of failure" falling outside the defined characteristic.
Justice Buchanan noted that these changes were "important ones
which address the rights of group members who will not be entitled
to a payment under the compensation protocol".

Delivering his final approval, Justice Buchanan noted that
"[t]here have been very few complaints among the more than 430
inquiries received regarding the proposed settlement".  He did not
believe that the few objections that had arisen provided a reason
not to approve the settlement.  Guided by the evidence, the
submissions supporting settlement and the parties' positive
response to judicial concerns, he concluded that the settlement
should be approved.

                         VIOXX Class Action

It has recently been reported that drug company Merck Sharp &
Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd has reached an A$540,000 settlement with
Australians who claim that Merck's arthritis drug, VIOXX, gave
them heart problems.  If approved by Justice Jessup of the Federal
Court of Australia, the settlement will result in eligible group
members (ie, those who suffered a heart attack after consuming
VIOXX for a certain period) each receiving a maximum of A$2,000 in
compensation (A$1,500 if deceased).  This ruling would end the
long-running class action against the pharmaceutical company that
began in December 2005 and continued in May 2012, when the High
Court refused special leave to appeal the 2010 decision of the
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia overturning a damages
award in respect of the representative applicant in the action.

Justice Jessup expressed concern that an order approving the
settlement would be binding on any group members who did not meet
the eligibility criteria for compensation, notwithstanding that
Section 33ZB of the Federal Court of Australia Act offers
protection for group members by allowing them to opt out.  He also
expressed concern that the proposed settlement did not take into
account individual circumstances, in particular those of group
members who may have a stronger case against Merck on causation:

"I must say that I'm having difficulty coming to grips with why
the settlement should be regarded as fair and reasonable in the
interests of all group members . . . without any attempt to make a
distinction between those who would be more likely to establish
causation."

Justice Jessup has therefore reserved his decision.


* IDTIS Issues Alert on Medical Class Action Scam
--------------------------------------------------
Linda Foley, writing for Examiner, reports that the ID Theft Info
Source (IDTIS) released an alert on May 21 regarding two scams
that the public needs to be aware of and are of "immediate
threat."

The first is a scam that starts with a phone call and person that
says they are calling regarding a class action lawsuit.  They ask
if you or a loved one has had pelvic mesh surgery or taken birth
control medication.  If you say know they ask about other types of
surgeries that we all have seen on television.

Jay Foley of the IDTIS who has spoken to people who got one of
these calls said, "It is clear that the person is speaking with an
accent and due to the voices in the background is part of a call
center.  The man asks if you or anyone in your family ever had a
pelvic mesh implanted or ever took birth control medication.  When
told no then goes on to ask about other implants and medications
that have been widely advertised.  The problem is that they then
ask for information such as your name, address, and Social
Security number to add you to the class action suit.  That is
exactly the same information that is needed for identity theft."

Mr. Foley then talked about the questions someone should ask
interested in a class action suit such as the name of the law
firm, where the firm is located and most importantly "how did they
get your phone number" due to the number of data breaches
involving medical records.

He said that anyone interested in a class action suit should
research different firms online rather than providing information
to the caller. C all state bar associations to verify the
legitimacy of the law firm and ask questions about the suit
itself.

The second scam alert has to do with the Oklahoma tornados and
those sweeping through tornado alley.  "Before the winds in
Oklahoma even stopped blowing thieves were already putting
programs into action to cheat people out of money," Mr. Foley
said.

"Unfortunately this is a pattern that has been seen for years and
as recently as the Boston bombing.  They pose as charities, buy or
take over websites that are similar to legitimate charities and
may even go door to door asking for money."


                             *********

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  * * *