CAR_Public/130612.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 115

                             Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Judge Certifies Gift Card Class Action
ACCESS LYNX: Disabled Person Mulls Class Action Over Bad Service
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Marcotte" Suit Parties Granted Leave to Appeal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Petition for Review in "Hoffman" Suit Denied
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Unit's Appeal Request in "Adams" Suit Granted

ARUBA NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ATP OIL: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action in Louisiana
BANK OF IRELAND: Borrowers Challenge Tracker Mortgage Rate Hikes
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Unit Defends Suits Over Mercaptan Release
BORDERS GROUP: Gift Card Holders Lose Class Certification Bid

BP PLC: Prime Int'l Files Class Action Over Oil Price-Fixing
BROTHER INT'L: Mayer Brown Discusses False Ad Class Action Ruling
CAMELOT INFORMATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
CANADA: G20 Detainees Lose Bid to Certify Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations

CHRYSLER GROUP: To Recall SUVs Over Air Bag & Seat Belt Defects
CLECO CORP: Bid to Review Customer Suit Ruling Remains Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: "Glick" Class Action Suit Has Been Dismissed
CNO FINANCIAL: Hearing on "Yue" Suits Settlement on June 10
CNO FINANCIAL: "Rowe" Suit to Proceed on Individual Basis

CNO FINANCIAL: "Ruderman" Class Suit Still Under Advisement
CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits "Nicholas" Suit Settlement Approval
CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Burnett" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Continue on July 8
COMCAST CORP: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Termination, Internet Fees

CVS CAREMARK: First Circuit Revives Shareholder Class Action
DJO FINANCE: Defends Product Liability Suits Over Pain Pumps
DOLLAR GENERAL: Expresses Concern Over Wage Suit Discovery Order
EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending
EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending

ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Colombia
ECOPETROL SA: Evidence Phase in Cano Limon Oil Spill Suit Pending
EMERALD GRAIN: More Than 70 Growers & Traders to Join Class Action
ERA GROUP: Superior Offshore Class Suit Still Pending in Delaware
ERIE INDEMNITY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Sullivan" Suit

FOCUS MEDIA: Continues to Defend "Tom Palny" Suit in New York
FOCUS MEDIA: Merger-Related Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in March
FORD MOTOR: Issues Three Recalls for 2013 Models Over Fuel Leak
G6 HOSPITALITY: Faces ADA Class Action Over Inaccessible Pools
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: FDA Panel Wants Avandia Safety Measure Changes

GREENBERG TRAURIG: Settles Gender Bias Class Action for $200MM
GULF SOUTH: Defends Suit Over Release of Mercaptan in Alabama
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Still Defends Suits Over Claim Underpayment
HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Bostick" Class Action Suit in California
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Still Defends MERS-Related Class Suit

INTEL CORP: Hearing in Delaware MDL Scheduled for July 2013
INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment in McAfee Acquisition Suit Appealed
ITAU UNIBANCO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stabilization Plans
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls Oral Contraceptive Packages Outside US
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Transvaginal Mesh Affects Women on Global Scale

KT CORP: Appeals in Suit Over 2G PCS Termination Remain Pending
LAKELAND BANCORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
LINNCO LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Berry Acquisition
MACQUARIE BANK: ASIC Appeals AU$82MM Storm Class Action Settlement
MAIN STREET: FDA Finds Bacteria & Fungus in Recalled Drug Vials

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Arpaio Ordered to Halt Race Profiling
MARK CIAVARELLA: Judge Combines Suits in "Kids for Cash" Scandal
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Allows Women Inmates' Class Action to Proceed
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: May Face Pressure If Tebow, Manziel Join Suit
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBSG Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBSG Defends Suits Over $85BB MBS Issuance
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBSG Defends Suits Over LIBOR
NVR INC: Still Defend Class Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
PILOT FLYING J: Faces Another Class Action Over Rebate Scheme
SEARS CORP: Interlocutory Appeal v. Judge's Order Filed

SEARS CORP: Supreme Court Has Yet to Decide on Certiorari Petition
SEARS CORP: High Court Must Stop Trial-Bar War on Innovation
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Says Data Breach Suit Belongs in Federal Court
SOS INTERNATIONAL: Judge Dismisses Credit Report Class Action
SPARK NETWORKS: To Be Defended by E-mail Publishers in Kirby Suit

SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Faces Class Action Over Securities Offering
TEXAS BRINE: Offers Settlement to Residents in Sinkhole Suit
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING: Settles Action Over Wellesley Fire
TOWNSEND FARMS: Recalls Hepatitis A-Linked Frozen Berry Mix
TOWNSEND FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Frozen Berry Mix

UNITED STATES: Lead Counsel in Pigford Suit Hires Lobbying Firms
VISA INC: Several Retailers File New Suit Over Card Swipe Fees
VISA INC: Settlement Still on Track for Approval Amid Objections
VODAFONE: Litigation Fund Refuses to Disclose Sign-Up Numbers
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Dismisses Gender Bias Class Action

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution
WMS INDUSTRIES: Denies Liability Alleged in Gardner Action
YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Rulings in Securities Suits in California
YUM! BRANDS: "Castillo" Suit vs. Taco Bell Units Now Closed
YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Taco Bell Crew Member's Suit

YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in "Moeller" Class Suit Set for June 13
YUM! BRANDS: Still Defends "Whittington" Class Suit in Colorado
YUM! BRANDS: Still Finalizing List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit

* 24,000 People Take Part in Class Action Over Unfair Bank Fees
* Canadian Senator Remains Mum on Husband's Off-Shore Trust
* Japan Consumer Class Action Bill Set to Go to Parliament
* Poll Says Americans Believe Supreme Court "Too Liberal"
* Surge in TCPA Consumer Class Actions Won't Abate Soon

* U.S. Companies in Denial About Gender Discrimination Problem


                             *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Judge Certifies Gift Card Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. on May 24 disclosed that a judge in the
Northern District of Illinois has certified a nationwide class in
a class action lawsuit filed against Abercrombie & Fitch (case no.
10-cv-04866).  The lawsuit, filed by Tiffany Boundas through her
attorneys DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. and Schad, Diamond & Shedden,
P.C., alleges that Abercrombie and abercrombie kids issued $25
gift cards to customers as part of a 2009 in-store winter holiday
promotion.  Abercrombie then voided the gift cards a couple months
later despite language on the cards that stated "No Expiration
Date."  By doing so, the lawsuit contends, Abercrombie breached
its contracts with customers.  The lawsuit seeks a payment of the
value of the gift cards that customers could not redeem as a
result of Abercrombie's actions.  Abercrombie contends that more
than $5 million is at issue in this lawsuit.

Copies of the Complaint, the judge's opinion certifying the class,
and the Class Notice can be obtained by going to
http://www.abercrombieclassaction.com

The judge has set a July 20, 2013 deadline for class members to
exclude themselves from the class.  For more information and to
learn other important dates in this case, please visit
http://www.abercrombieclassaction.com

The Class counsel are:

     -- Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq., Dustin Jensen, Esq., and Peter
S. Lubin, Esq. -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com djensen@ditommasolaw.com
and psl@ditommasolaw.com -- at DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., 17W220 22nd
Street, Suite 410, Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181; and

     -- James Shedden, Esq., Lawrence W. Schad, Esq., Matt Burns,
Esq. -- JShedden@lawsds.com lschad@lawsds.com mburns@lawsds.com --
at Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C., 332 S. Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60604.

DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. -- http://www.ditommasolaw.com-- is a law
firm committed to fighting for consumer's rights.  With over two
and a half decades of experience litigating class action lawsuits
across the nation, the attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. have
recovered millions of dollars for consumers.  DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C. has offices in downtown Chicago and throughout the
Chicagoland area.

Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. -- http://www.lawsds.com-- is
located on Michigan Avenue in Chicago.  The firm focuses on
consumer protection and concentrates its practice on plaintiff
class actions and complex commercial litigation.  Their attorneys
have recovered millions of dollars and other benefits for
consumers under state and federal consumer protection laws.


ACCESS LYNX: Disabled Person Mulls Class Action Over Bad Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reports that an Altamonte Springs man has said he is
filing a class action lawsuit against Lynx on behalf of people
with disabilities.

James Stravino said he isn't looking for money.  He wants Lynx to
make changes to the way Access Lynx provides transportation for
disabled people in Orange, Seminole and Osceola counties.  Mr.
Stravino said he has taken more than 100 trips on Access Lynx
buses and said the service has been so bad, it's forcing him to
take legal action.

Attorney David Oliver represents Mr. Stravino.

Mr. Stravino said the bus service failed to pick him up or drop
him off on time at least seven times.  On one occasion, Mr.
Stravino said a driver never secured his wheelchair to the floor
of the bus, causing it to teeter on every turn.

Mr. Oliver said Lynx needs to be sensitive to the needs of
disabled persons.

"This particular client needs assistance in stowing his
wheelchair.  The drivers declined to provide that.  In their view,
it's not their job.  In Congress' view, it is," Mr. Oliver said.

The lawsuit says Lynx violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

"Obviously, you should always be in consideration for people with
different disabilities.  I'm all for accommodations for any
handicapped," Orlando resident Scott Hones said.

"That's sad. It's very sad," Orlando resident Ginny Kempisty said.

It's a class action lawsuit, which covers anyone in the area with
a disability.

"This is not an action for the benefit of one person.  It's for
the benefit of an entire class of people," Mr. Oliver said.

The lawsuit says Access Lynx provides 2,100 trips every day to and
from medical facilities.

A Lynx spokesman said he found record of just two complaints
lodged by Mr. Stravino, who said he's used Access Lynx roughly 140
times.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Marcotte" Suit Parties Granted Leave to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in April 2013
in the class action lawsuit styled Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal,
et al., according to American Express Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In May 2006, in a matter captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal,
et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal (originally filed in April 2003), the Superior Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of
Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada,
Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada.  The action alleges
that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions
are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the
"QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period
under the QCPA.  The class includes all persons residing in Quebec
holding a credit card issued by one of the defendants to whom fees
were charged since April 17, 2000, for transactions made in
foreign currency before expiration of the period of 21 days
following the statement of account.  The class claims
reimbursement of all foreign currency conversions, CAD400 per
class member for trouble, inconvenience and punitive damages,
interest and fees and costs.  The trial in the Marcotte action
commenced in September 2008 and was completed in November 2008.
The Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
against Amex Bank of Canada on June 11, 2009, and awarded damages
in the amount of approximately CAD8.3 million plus interest on the
QCPA claims and individual claims to be made on the non-disclosure
claims.  In addition, the Superior Court awarded punitive damages
in the amount of CAD25.00 per cardmember.  The judgment has been
appealed by all banks, including Amex Bank of Canada.

On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision
against Amex Bank of Canada and certain of the other co-
defendants.  The remaining co-defendants and the plaintiffs filed
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  The Supreme Court
of Canada granted leave to appeal in April 2013.

New York-based American Express Company is a global services
company that provides customers with access to products, insights
and experiences that enrich lives and build business success.  The
Company's principal products and services are charge and credit
payment card products and travel-related services offered to
consumers and businesses around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Petition for Review in "Hoffman" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its April 29, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that Hoffman, et al.'s petition
to the California Supreme Court for review of a summary judgment
made in its favor was denied.

In September 2001, Hoffman, et al. v. American Express Travel
Related Services Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, Alameda County.  The Plaintiffs in
that case claim that American Express erroneously charged
Cardmember accounts in connection with its airflight insurance
programs because in certain circumstances customers must request
refunds, as disclosed in materials for the voluntary program.  In
January 2006, the Court certified a class of American Express
charge Cardmembers asserting claims for breach of contract and
conversion under New York law, with a subclass of California
residents asserting violations of California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, and a subclass of New
York residents asserting violation of New York General Business
Law Section 349.  American Express was granted judgment on all
counts following trial and that judgment was affirmed by the Court
of Appeal for California on December 17, 2012.  The Plaintiffs'
petition to the California Supreme Court for review was denied.

New York-based American Express Company is a global services
company that provides customers with access to products, insights
and experiences that enrich lives and build business success.  The
Company's principal products and services are charge and credit
payment card products and travel-related services offered to
consumers and businesses around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Unit's Appeal Request in "Adams" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada granted in April 2013 the request by
an American Express Company subsidiary for leave to appeal the
ruling in the class action lawsuit commenced by Sylvan Adams,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In November 2006, in a matter captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank
of Canada filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal (originally filed in November 2004), the Superior Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada.  The
plaintiff alleges that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada
charged a foreign currency conversion commission on transactions
to purchase goods and services in currencies other than Canadian
dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing
statements or solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers.
The action further alleges that conversion commissions made on
foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged prior
to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA.  The class, consisting
of all personal and small business cardmembers residing in Quebec
that purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to
December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversion commissions, CAD1,000 in punitive damages per class
member, interest and fees and costs.  The trial in the Adams
action commenced, and was completed, in December 2008 after the
conclusion of the trial in the Marcotte action.  The Superior
Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex
Bank of Canada on June 11, 2009, and awarded damages in the amount
of approximately CAD13.1 million plus interest on the non-
disclosure claims.  In addition, the Superior Court awarded
punitive damages in the amount of CAD2.5 million.  Amex Bank of
Canada appealed the judgment and on August 2, 2012, the Court of
Appeal overturned the decision in part, with regard to the award
of punitive damages.

On October 15, 2012, Amex Bank of Canada filed leave for appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada.  The Supreme Court of Canada granted
leave to appeal in April 2013.

New York-based American Express Company is a global services
company that provides customers with access to products, insights
and experiences that enrich lives and build business success.  The
Company's principal products and services are charge and credit
payment card products and travel-related services offered to
consumers and businesses around the world.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on May 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Aruba
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 13 CV 2342, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Aruba between May 17, 2012 and May 16,
2013, both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aruba securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 22, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Aruba Networks is a leading provider of next-generation network
access solutions for the mobile networks enterprise.  The
company's Mobile Virtual Enterprise (MOVE) architecture unifies
wired and wireless network infrastructures into one seamless
access solution for corporate headquarters, mobile business
professionals, remote workers and guests.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company did not hold a
competitive advantage over Cisco Systems, Inc.; (ii) the Company
was well aware of the weaknesses in Aruba's marketing abilities
given the "bundling" advantages that Cisco held over Aruba; (iii)
Cisco's bundling practices would greatly undermine the Company's
market share and overall success rate in signing contracts with
clients; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 7, 2013, the Company issued a press release announcing
preliminary results for the third quarter 2013, and lowered its
previously stated revenue guidance from $159 to $161 million to
$144 to 147 million.  On this news, Aruba's shares declined $5.03
per share or over 22%, to close at $17.02 per share on May 7,
2013.

On May 16, 2013, the Company issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter 2013; reporting net income
of $14 million or $0.11 per diluted share, well below analysts'
expectations.  On this news, Aruba's stock declined $4.51 per
share or nearly 26%, to close at $13.10 per share on May 17, 2013.
Despite the Company's prior Class Period statements minimizing the
impact of Cisco's bundling capabilities on Aruba's profits, the
Company now attributed its disappointed results on "a heightened
level of competition and bundling strategy from our largest
competitor [Cisco]".

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://pomerantzlaw.com/-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


ATP OIL: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on May 24 disclosed that it
filed a class action complaint on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired ATP Oil & Gas Corp. 11.875% Senior Second Lien
Exchange Notes pursuant to the Company's December 16, 2010
Exchange of the Notes.  The action, which seeks remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ATP 11.875% Senior
Second Lien Exchange Notes pursuant and/or traceable to the
Exchange and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action must
move the Court no later than July 23, 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 Web site for more
information: http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

ATP is engaged in the acquisition, development, and production of
oil and natural gas properties.  The Company seeks to acquire and
develop properties with proven undeveloped reserves in the Gulf of
Mexico and North Sea that are economically attractive, but not
strategic to, major or large independent exploration-oriented oil
and gas companies.  ATP also has licenses for exploration in the
Mediterranean Sea.  On August 17, 2012, the Company announced that
it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material
adverse facts in their publicly filed Exchange materials.
Specifically, ATP made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning: (1) the
impact that two successive United States Department of the
Interior moratoria for deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf
of Mexico had on the Company's operations and revenues; and (2)
the Company's breach of certain credit agreements by engaging in
"disguised financing" arrangements that were designed to evade the
requirements of such credit agreements.

As of the date the securities class action was filed, ATP 11.875%
Senior Second Lien Exchange Notes were trading at approximately
four cents ($0.04) on the dollar.

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
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
                 mburnett@scott-scott.com


BANK OF IRELAND: Borrowers Challenge Tracker Mortgage Rate Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Dale, writing for Money Marketing, reports that Bank of
Ireland borrowers pursuing a class action against the bank's
tracker mortgage rate hikes have vowed to "keep the pressure" on
the firm after it reversed its decision for 1,200 of 13,500
affected customers.

On May 1, buy-to-let borrowers saw rates rise from Bank of England
base rate plus 1.75%, to base rate plus 4.49%.  For residential
borrowers it rose to base plus 2.49% and will rise to 3.99 per
cent on October 1.

BoI says the increases are due to extra bank capital requirements.
More than 300 customers are challenging the bank because they
believe the contract term was unfair and the rise should not
stand.

BoI announced it will exempt 1,000 flexible mortgage customers who
received a letter indicating the rate would last for the entire
term.  A further 200 customers who switched their mortgage to a
tracker and whose contract did not make it clear the rate could
change will also be exempt.

Law Department solicitor Justin Selig, leading the action, says:
"This is not the end.  We are still going and want to keep the
pressure on."


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Unit Defends Suits Over Mercaptan Release
-------------------------------------------------------------
The subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (the
Partnership), Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, and several other
defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have
been named as defendants in six lawsuits, including one purported
class action lawsuit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs in the
Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages for personal injury and property damage
related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler
Junction facilities in Eight Mile, Alabama.  Gulf South delivers
natural gas to MGSC, the local distribution company for that
region, at Whistler Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas prior to
delivery to end user customers by injecting mercaptan into the gas
stream, as required by law.  The cases are: Parker, et al. v.
Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et
al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901057),
Austin, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-
901133), Moore, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case
No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et
al. (Case No. CV-12-901490) and Joel G. Reed, et al. v. Mobile Gas
Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-922265).

Gulf South has denied liability.  Gulf South has demanded that
MGSC indemnify Gulf South against all liability related to these
matters pursuant to a right-of-way agreement between Gulf South
and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims against MGSC for any such
liability.  MGSC has also filed cross-claims against Gulf South
seeking indemnity and other relief from Gulf South.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company says the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at
this time; however, based on the facts and circumstances presently
known, in the opinion of management, these cases will not be
material to the Partnership's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Houston, Texas-based Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, is a
Delaware limited partnership formed in 2005 to own and operate the
business conducted by its primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines,
LP, and its operating subsidiaries, which business consists of
integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids pipeline and
storage systems and natural gas gathering and processing.


BORDERS GROUP: Gift Card Holders Lose Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Rosen, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that three
Borders gift card holders who wanted to be certified for a class
action suit for unused gift cards at the bankrupt retailer lost
their bid in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  On May 22, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. upheld Bankruptcy
Court Judge Martin Glenn's denial.

At the time of the final Borders store closings in September 2011,
Borders had approximately 17.7 million outstanding gift cards with
unredeemed balances of $210.5 million.  Not a single claim was
filed by card holders by the June 1, 2011 deadline for
nongovernmental creditors.  Ironically two of the card holders in
the suit filed claims for unredeemed balances on their gift cards
on January 4, 2012, two weeks after the Bankruptcy Court confirmed
Borders's Distribution Plan.

According to court documents, to date the BGI Creditors'
Liquidating Trust has distributed $80 million for administrative
expenses, to priority claim holders and general unsecured
creditors.  There is approximately $61 million remaining for
distribution.


BP PLC: Prime Int'l Files Class Action Over Oil Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Vaughan and Tom Polansek at Reuters report that a Chicago-
based commodities trading firm has filed suit against three of the
world's largest oil companies, accusing them of colluding to fix
oil prices after European authorities opened an investigation.

Prime International Trading Ltd., which trades crude oil and other
commodities, filed the proposed class-action lawsuit against BP
Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Statoil on May 22, accusing the
firms of misreporting trades in North Sea Brent, the oil benchmark
which sets the price of about 70% of the world's crude.

The lawsuit is seeking civil damages on the heels of a European
Commission probe into the reporting of false prices to price-
setting agency Platts, a unit of McGraw-Hill.

Platts' information is used to price oil contracts, including
Brent.

None of the oil companies responded to phone calls and emails
seeking comment on the lawsuit.

No charges have yet been brought by European authorities, and the
oil companies have said they are cooperating with the
investigation.  Statoil said the suspected violations may have
been ongoing since 2002.

"If it is found there was wrongdoing by the oil companies, the
class-action suit would almost certainly significantly drive up
the cost of any settlement," said Craig Pirrong, a University of
Houston professor of finance and a commodities expert.

Authorities raided the London bureau of Platts and the offices of
the three oil majors named in the lawsuit.

                        Natural Gas Case

The lawsuit accused the oil companies of reporting "inaccurate,
misleading and false information" about Brent crude to Platts, and
said it plans to include up to 50 other defendants who have not
been named, but may also have participated in the alleged oil
price manipulation.

Phone calls and emails to the oil companies named in the suit were
not immediately returned on May 23.

At Prime's office in Chicago, located on the 13th floor of an
office building next door to the Chicago Board of Trade building,
a CBOT floor clerk said that no one was available to discuss the
case.

Vincent Briganti, who works for Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart
which is representing the plaintiffs, declined to comment on the
particulars of the case.  The law firm was one of the companies
that helped secure a $101 million settlement in a class-action
suit related to the manipulation of U.S. natural gas price indexes
a decade ago in the wake of the Enron scandal.

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, who chairs the Senate's energy committee,
earlier asked the Justice Department to join the probe into
potential oil market manipulation, by investigating whether it had
boosted fuel prices for U.S. consumers.

"Efforts to manipulate European oil indices, if proven, may have
already impacted U.S. consumers and businesses, because of the
interrelationships among world oil markets and hedging practices,"
Mr. Wyden wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.


BROTHER INT'L: Mayer Brown Discusses False Ad Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald M. Falk, Esq., at Mayer Brown, reports that the Ninth
Circuit's decision last year in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.
[666 F.3d 581] (a case Mr. Falk argued) made it more difficult to
sustain a nationwide class action under California consumer
protection laws.  Applying California "governmental interest"
choice-of-law principles, the Mazza court held that the
jurisdiction having the greatest interest in supplying the rule of
decision was the one in which a consumer received misleading
communications, made her purchase, and sustained any injury -- not
the location of the company headquarters from which the
communications "emanated."

In Maniscalco v. Brother International (USA) Corp., the Third
Circuit reached a similar conclusion applying New Jersey's (and
the Restatement's) "most significant relationship" choice-of-law
test.  The court of appeals granted summary judgment against a
South Carolina resident seeking to sue (and represent a nationwide
class) under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  In doing so, the
court rejected In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation,
257 F.R.D. 46 (D.N.J. 2009), a much-cited district court decision
that had permitted a nationwide class action to proceed under New
Jersey law.

In Maniscalco, the plaintiffs had claimed that Brother had misled
consumers by concealing two purported defects in its printers.
The plaintiffs asserted a claim under New Jersey law on the theory
that the various alleged acts of concealment had emanated from
Brother's New Jersey headquarters. The district court dismissed
the case, and the Third Circuit affirmed on the ground that South
Carolina law governed the plaintiff's claim.

The Third Circuit found that three of the six factors in Section
148(2) of the Restatement weighed strongly in favor of applying
the law of South Carolina.  Specifically, (1) the plaintiffs had
received and (2) relied on the alleged representations, and where
(3) the tangible object of the parties' transaction was located.
Weighing less heavily was the Restatement's preference for the
domicile of the plaintiff over that of the defendant.  Finding a
fifth factor irrelevant because the parties were not litigating
over a contract, the court examined the final factor -- the place
of the "alleged omissions."  Assuming that the plaintiff was
correct that the omissions took place in New Jersey rather than
South Carolina, the court of appeals held that single factor
insufficient to overcome the others, especially because nothing
else having to do with the parties' relationship took place in New
Jersey.

The Third Circuit also held (in terms echoing Mazza) that general
choice-of-law policies and "the interests of interstate comity"
favored application of South Carolina law because "[a]pplying New
Jersey law to every potential out-of-state claimant would
frustrate the policies of each claimant's state," and the
"interest of South Carolina in having its law apply to its own
consumers outweighs the interests of New Jersey in protecting out-
of-state consumers from consumer fraud."

In declining to "open[] the floodgates to nation-wide consumer
fraud class actions brought by out-of-state plaintiffs involving
transactions with no connection to New Jersey other than the
location of the defendant's headquarters," the Third Circuit put
up another impediment to plaintiffs' lawyers seeking to certify
nationwide classes under one state's consumer protection laws.
Between them, Maniscalco and Mazza suggest that nationwide class
certification under state law will be an uphill battle in forums
applying either of two prominent modern choice-of-law analyses.


CAMELOT INFORMATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Camelot Information Systems Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in
New York, 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.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Michael Fox v. Camelot Information
Systems Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12 CIV 0086 (filed on
January 5, 2012).  The complaint in this action also named as
defendants the Company's current and former directors and
officers.  The complaint also named underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering in July 2010 and the follow-on offering in
December 2010.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Company made various misstatements
and omissions regarding the business practices and financial
results in violation of the federal securities laws.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
disclose negative trends in the business, including those with
respect to the employees and most important customers.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") between July 21, 2010, and September 28, 2011, and/or who
acquired shares of the Company's ADSs pursuant to or traceable to
the allegedly false and misleading registration statements and
prospectuses issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and follow-on offering.  By order dated June 6,
2012, and pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, Judge Gardephe appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in
the case.  Pursuant to a stipulation executed by the parties to
the action, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint on September 6, 2012, and subsequently filed a corrected
amended class action complaint on September 28, 2012.  The Company
has filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended class action
complaint, which has been briefed by the parties and is currently
pending before the court.

The Company believes the complaint lacks of any merit.  However,
the confidence of the Company's current or potential investors and
customers, as well as its business reputation may be adversely
affected.  Further, the Company cannot assure that there will not
be any similar allegations against it in the future.  Should the
Company receive any unfavorable judgment against it out of these
allegations, the Company's results of operations and financial
condition could be materially and adversely affected and the
Company's business reputation may also be damaged.

Camelot Information Systems Inc. -- http://www.camelotchina.com/
-- is a British Virgin Islands holding company incorporated in
November 2000 and headquartered in Beijing, China.  The Company
conducts a significant majority of its business through its
operating subsidiaries in China.  The Company is a domestic
provider of enterprise application services and financial industry
IT services in China.


CANADA: G20 Detainees Lose Bid to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario judge has ruled that
hundreds of people detained during the G20 summit three years ago
can't sue as a group.

The C$45-million proposed class action lawsuit was spearheaded by
Sherry Good, a 51-year-old office administrator who says she was
corralled by cops for four hours when police in riot gear used a
tactic called kettling.

But on May 24 a judge ruled that it can't proceed as a class
action, saying its "broad, sweeping nature" is problematic.

A statement from lawyer Murray Klippenstein's office says they
will appeal the decision.

More than 1,000 people were detained by police that weekend in
June 2010 after protesters using so-called Black Bloc tactics
broke away from a peaceful rally and ran through the downtown,
smashing windows and burning police cruisers.

The vast majority of those detained were released without charge
within 24 hours.


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
89 WLS reports that a class-action suit was filed against the City
of Chicago on May 24, alleging the Clerk's Office ignored
provisions of a law designed to protect people from identity
theft, thereby endangering the personal finances of dozens of
people.

The suit, filed by Scott Redman in Federal Court, claims that the
City Clerk's office violated an amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by printing and issuing receipts that displayed too
many credit card digits and the card's expiration date.

"Despite the simple steps necessary to comply, and despite such
abundant notice, [the] Defendant simply chose to ignore compliance
with the FRCA," the suit states.

In May 2011, Mr. Redman purchased something from the Clerk's
office with his MasterCard.  He claims that he received an
electronically printed receipt that displayed eight of his card's
digits and the expiration date.

Mr. Redman believes there may be more than 100 other people who
were given receipts from the Clerk's office that listed too many
digits, though his attorney could not be reached from
clarification.

Representatives from the Clerk's office and the City's Law
Department could not be reached for comment.


CHRYSLER GROUP: To Recall SUVs Over Air Bag & Seat Belt Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that just
two days after refusing a government request to recall 2.7 million
older-model Jeeps, Chrysler has decided to do two other recalls
totaling 630,000 vehicles worldwide.

The automaker will recall more than 409,000 Jeep Patriot and
Compass small SUVs across the globe from the 2010 and 2012 model
years to fix air bag and seat-belt problems.  It's also recalling
221,000 Jeep Wranglers worldwide from 2012 and 2013 to fix
transmission fluid leaks, according to documents posted on May 30
on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website.

In the Patriots and Compasses, a software error could cause late
deployment of the side air bags and seat-belt tightening
mechanisms, and that could cause injuries in rollover crashes.
Dealers will repair the software for free starting in July.

For Wranglers with 3.6-liter V-6 engines, Chrysler says a power
steering fluid line can wear a hole in the transmission oil cooler
line.  The SUVs can leak fluid, damaging automatic transmissions.
Dealers will inspect the lines for free and replace them or
install a protective sleeve.  The recall begins in July.

No crashes or injuries have been reported in either case, Chrysler
spokesman Eric Mayne said on June 6.

The Compass and Patriot recall includes 254,400 vehicles in the
U.S., 45,400 in Canada and another 109,400 outside North America,
according to Chrysler.

The Wrangler recall includes 181,000 vehicles in the U.S. as well
as 18,400 in Canada, 3,300 in Mexico and another 18,400 outside
North America.

Concerned customers in either case can call Chrysler at (800) 853-
1403.

On June 4, Chrysler refused a request from NHTSA to recall
2.7 million older Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty SUVs, saying the
vehicles are safe and met federal safety standards when they were
built.  The government, however, says the 1993-2004 Grand
Cherokees and 2002-2007 Liberty models have fuel tanks that can
leak and catch fire in rear-end collisions.  The tanks are mounted
behind the rear axle, which NHTSA says is a design flaw.

Refusing a recall is rare for an automaker, but Chrysler maintains
that NHTSA's conclusions are based on flawed data.  The company
says it's still working with NHTSA to resolve the issue, but the
matter could wind up in court.

The company previously refused a NHTSA request in 1996, when the
agency asked it to recall 91,000 Dodge Stratus and Chrysler Cirrus
cars for an alleged seat belt defect.  NHTSA sued the company and
won in federal court.  But in 1998, an appeals court reversed the
decision, saying NHTSA had unfairly held Chrysler to a new
standard.

Chrysler says there are no safety defects with the older Jeeps.
But Mayne said defects were identified on the newer Jeeps and the
company responded accordingly.

In a separate report, the AP disclosed that NHTSA opened an
investigation into the SUVs in August 2010 at the request of the
Center for Auto Safety, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group.
Clarence Ditlow, the center's director, has repeatedly sent
letters to Chrysler seeking a recall.

The agency found that the Jeeps' fuel tanks can fail when hit from
the rear, leak fuel and cause fires if there's an ignition source.
The placement of the tanks behind the axle and their height above
the road is a design defect, the agency wrote in its letter to
Chrysler, dated Monday.

Chrysler moved Grand Cherokee fuel tanks ahead of the rear axle in
2005, and did the same thing with the Liberty in 2007.  But
retrofitting the older Jeeps with repositioned tanks would be time
consuming and costly.  In 2011, when Toyota recalled 1.7 million
cars for possible fuel leaks from sensors, an analyst estimated
the cost at $240 million.

Automakers usually agree to a recall request, partly to avoid bad
publicity. In the last three years, Chrysler has conducted 52
recalls.

Chrysler last refused NHTSA in 1996, when the agency asked the
company to recall 91,000 Dodge Stratus and Chrysler Cirrus cars
for an alleged seat belt defect.  NHTSA sued the company -- and
won -- in federal court.  But in 1998, a federal appeals court
reversed the lower court's decision, saying NHTSA had unfairly
held Chrysler to a new standard.

Chrysler was represented in that case by John Roberts, who is now
chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chrysler says its review of nearly 30 years of data shows a low
number of rear-impact crashes involving fire or a fuel leak in a
fleet of more than 5 million vehicles.

"The rate is similar to comparable vehicles produced and sold
during the time in question," the company said in the statement.

But NHTSA said in its letter that the older Jeeps performed poorly
when compared with all but one similar vehicle from the 1993 to
2007 model years, "particularly in terms of fatalities, fires
without fatalities, and fuel leaks in rear-end impacts and
crashes."

NHTSA found at least 32 rear-impact crashes and fires in Grand
Cherokees that caused 44 deaths.  It also found at least five rear
crashes in Libertys, causing seven deaths.  The agency calculated
that the older Grand Cherokees and Libertys have fatal crash rates
that are about double those of similar vehicles.  It compared the
Jeeps with the Chevrolet S10 Blazer, Ford Explorer, Toyota
4Runner, Isuzu Rodeo, Isuzu Trooper, Mitsubishi Montero, Suzuki
Sidekick and Suzuki XL-7.

NHTSA asks Chrysler in the letter to recall the vehicles and
"implement a remedy action that improves their performance in
rear-impacts and crashes."  But it made no recommendation on a
fix.

Chrysler says most traffic deaths occur in front, side and
rollover crashes.  It called the older Grand Cherokees and
Libertys "among the safest vehicles of their era," saying they met
all federal safety standards in effect at the time they were
built.

NHTSA concedes that, but says the standards are minimums for
vehicle safety.  "The existence of a minimum standard does not
require NHTSA to ignore deadly problems," the letter said.


CLECO CORP: Bid to Review Customer Suit Ruling Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The request to review a ruling in favor of Cleco Corporation's
subsidiary remains pending in the 19th Judicial District Court for
Baton Rouge Parish, according to the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District
Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three
Cleco Power LLC customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The complaint
alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to
customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power
applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs claim that
Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as
a result of the alleged overcharges.  The plaintiffs allege that
Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in
Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the
retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that
Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the
storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public Service
Commission (LPSC) following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco
Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise
granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986 and an
operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to
which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases
and operates electric facilities owned by the City of Opelousas.
In July 2011, the operating and franchise agreements were amended
and extended for a period of ten years, until August 2021.  In
April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing
to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas
have been properly charged the rates that are applicable to Cleco
Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have been
collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric customers
from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be properly
addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act.

In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th
Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana,
repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was
submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power has
responded in the same manner as with the first class action
lawsuit.  In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases
to the state court in which they were originally filed for further
proceedings.  In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state
court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff
appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the
State of Louisiana (Third Circuit).  In September 2011, the Third
Circuit denied both appeals.  In October 2011, both Cleco and the
LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  In November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the
appeals and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further
briefing, argument, and opinion.  In February 2011, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that
the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class
action plaintiffs.  At its December 2011 Business and Executive
Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be
granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that
Cleco's ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under
applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's
Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with
LPSC rates or ratemaking.

In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of
such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for Baton
Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana.  In February 2012, the Third
Circuit ruled that the state court, and not the LPSC, has
jurisdiction to hear the case.  In March 2012, Cleco Power
appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court
asking that it overturns the Third Circuit decision and confirms
the LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction over this matter.  The LPSC also
appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court
in March 2012.  In May 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted
the writ application of Cleco Power and the LPSC and set the
matter for further briefing on the merits of the jurisdiction
question raised in the writ application.  Such briefing was
completed during the third quarter of 2012 and the Louisiana
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in September 2012.

In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion
accepting Cleco's jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state
court claims.  The only matter remaining is before the 19th
Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco's favor
that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas.

In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able
to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of
liability, if any, of these claims.  However, if it is found that
Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such
refund could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Headquartered in Pineville, Louisiana, Cleco Corporation is a
regional energy company that conducts substantially all of its
business operations through its two primary subsidiaries: (1)
Cleco Power LLC, a regulated electric utility company, which owns
nine generating units, and (2) Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, a
wholesale energy business, which owns Cleco Evangeline LLC, which
operates the Coughlin Power Station.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Glick" Class Action Suit Has Been Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit filed by Fay Glick has been
dismissed, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s April 29,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 23, 2012, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston), Fay Glick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, Case No. 1:12-cv-
11579.  The plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
and damages arising from Bankers' alleged systematic business
practices of delaying and/or denying the payment of claims for
benefits provided for under its healthcare insurance policies and
recovery of undisclosed interest that Bankers has charged on any
policyholders who paid premiums on a monthly or "modal" basis (as
opposed to paying premiums on an annual basis).  On January 30,
2013, the court dismissed the modal premium related claims.  The
parties have entered into a confidential settlement on an
individual basis.  The case has been dismissed.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Hearing on "Yue" Suits Settlement on June 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the final approval of CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s
settlement of two class action lawsuits brought by Celedonia
X. Yue was set for June 10, 2013, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D., on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.  The Plaintiff in this putative
class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the
life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General
Life Insurance Company in 1995.  The Plaintiff is claiming breach
of contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.
The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.  The Plaintiff alleges that members of
the class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a
non-guaranteed element ("NGE")) that are set to take place in the
twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.  At
the time the plaintiff filed her complaint, no such increases had
yet been applied to the subject policies.

During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the
cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is
following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance
rate increases as set forth in the regulatory settlement agreement
under the caption entitled "Regulatory Examinations and Fines".
The Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a nationwide
class and a California state class.  On December 7, 2009, the
court granted that motion.  On October 8, 2010, the court
dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the California state
class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory relief claim and
on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory opinion, in the
form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its view, Conseco
Life could consider in implementing future cost of insurance rate
increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm block of policies.
Conseco Life is appealing the court's January 19, 2011 decision
and the plaintiff is appealing the court's decision to dismiss the
California causes of action.  These appeals are pending.  The
Company believes this case is without merit, and intends to defend
it vigorously.

On November 15, 2011, a second complaint was filed by Dr. Yue in
the United States District Court for the Central District on
California, Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV11-9506 AHM (SHx),
involving the same Valulife universal life policy described in the
first lawsuit.  The Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of
proposed members of a national class and a California class is
claiming breach of contract, injunctive and restitutionary relief
pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory
relief, and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief.  The putative class consists of all owners and former
owners of Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies
issued by either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and
that were later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.  The
Plaintiff alleges that members of the classes will be damaged by
increases in the cost of insurance (a NGE) that took place on or
about November 1, 2011.  The Plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction and a motion for certification of a
California class.  On April 2, 2012, the court granted the
plaintiff's motions, which Conseco Life is appealing.  Pending the
outcome of that appeal, Conseco Life is preliminarily enjoined
from imposing the 2011 increase in the cost of insurance on the
members of the California class.  The Plaintiff also filed a
motion on March 20, 2012, for certification of a nationwide class.

Conseco Life has agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff in both
litigations, which would, upon court approval, resolve those cases
as well as the Nicholas litigation.  On January 25, 2013, the
parties filed a stipulation of settlement and joint motion for
preliminary approval of proposed nationwide class settlement and
certification of settlement classes.  On March 6, 2013, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  The settlement
includes a reduction in the cost of insurance increase implemented
by Conseco Life in November 2011 and certain policy benefit
enhancements.  Final approval of the settlement is subject to a
court fairness hearing, set for June 10, 2013, after notice to the
policyholders covered by the settlement, as well as other
conditions.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Rowe" Suit to Proceed on Individual Basis
---------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc., disclosed in its April 29, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that the class action lawsuit
commenced by Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe will proceed on an
individual basis.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf
of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicant's actuarial life expectancy.  The Plaintiffs
have amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a
California only class action to a national class action.  In
addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.

On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  On March 29,
2012, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for certification of
a nationwide class and denied the plaintiff's motion for
certification of a California class.  The court allowed the
plaintiff the opportunity to file a renewed motion for a
California class, which the plaintiff did on May 21, 2012.  On
July 24, 2012, Bankers Life filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 26, 2013, the court granted partial summary judgment in
favor of Bankers Life and denied the plaintiff's renewed motion
for a California class.  The case will proceed on an individual
basis.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Ruderman" Class Suit Still Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company breached
the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the
lifetime maximum.  CNO Financial Group, Inc. takes the position
that the inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum
benefit.  Additional parties have asked the court to allow them to
intervene in the action, and on January 5, 2010, the court granted
the motion to intervene and granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The court certified a (B) (3) Florida state
class alleging damages and a (B) (2) Florida state class alleging
injunctive relief.  The parties reached a settlement of the (B)
(3) class in 2010, which has been implemented.  The amount
recognized in 2010 related to the settlement was not significant
to the Company's consolidated financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations.  The plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment as to the (B) (2) class which was granted by the court on
September 8, 2010.  The Company has appealed the court's decision
and the appeal is pending.  On February 17, 2012, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals referred the case to the Florida Supreme
Court, which accepted jurisdiction of the case.  On December 5,
2012, the Florida Supreme Court held oral argument and took the
matter under advisement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits "Nicholas" Suit Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of a
settlement that would resolve the class action lawsuit initiated
by Daniel B. Nicholas, according to the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 6, 2012, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Daniel B.
Nicholas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 12cv845.  The
Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal
life policy insuring the Plaintiff's life originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company (now Conseco Life
Insurance Company) in 1991.  The Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief.  The putative
class consists of all persons who own or have owned one or more
universal life policies issued by Conseco Life which provide that
the cost of insurance rates will be determined based upon
expectations as to future mortality experience and who have
experienced an increase in the cost of insurance rates.

On April 20, 2012, the Company announced that Conseco Life had
reached a tentative settlement in the Nicholas case.  Venue of
this case was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
settlement would, if approved, resolve the Nicholas case.

In connection with the tentative settlement in the Nicholas
litigation, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately
$20 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.  The Company recorded an additional pre-tax
charge of $21 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, relating to the settlement
agreement in the Yue litigation.  The liability the Company has
established related to these cases includes its best estimates of
the costs of implementing the settlement, if finalized and
approved by the court.  While the Company believes its estimates
are adequate to cover these costs, the estimates are subject to
significant judgment and it is possible that the estimates will
prove insufficient to cover the actual costs.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Burnett" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on a
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by William
Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and
CNO Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.  The plaintiffs
bring this action under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of various
Lifetrend policyholders who since October 2008 have surrendered
their policies or had them lapse.  Such policyholders are no
longer members of the class covered by the MDL litigation
described in the previous paragraph after the court in the MDL
litigation granted Conseco Life's motion to decertify as to former
policyholders.  Additionally, the plaintiffs seek certification of
a subclass of various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted
optional benefits and signed a release pursuant to the regulatory
settlement agreement under the caption entitled "Regulatory
Examinations and Fines."  The plaintiffs allege breach of contract
and seek declaratory relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees
and costs.  On November 30, 2012, Conseco Life and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company believes this case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Lifetrend MDL to Continue on July 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the Lifetrend multidistrict litigation has been continued
to July 8, 2013, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s
April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

                          Brady Case

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain non-guaranteed
elements ("NGEs") in their policies.  On April 23, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts
of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
conversion and declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc.
and Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that
Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the
breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

                        McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court. On July 7,
2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
On October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification
of a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011.  On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders.  On March 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting
that the court enjoin Conseco Life from imposing increased cost of
insurance charges until trial with regard to 157 members of the
class, and on July 17, 2012, the court granted a preliminary
injunction as to 100 members of the class and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the other 57
members.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, Conseco Life
filed a motion to decertify the nationwide class, and Conseco Life
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On January 29, 2013, the
court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment and denied Conseco Life's motions.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle on material
terms of settlement.  Trial has been continued to July 8, 2013,
while the parties prepare and file a Stipulation of Settlement
with the court.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, CNO Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity,
individual life insurance and other insurance products.  CNO
became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in connection with the
entity's bankruptcy reorganization which became effective on
September 10, 2003.  The Company's insurance subsidiaries include
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Washington National Insurance
Company, and Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company.


COMCAST CORP: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Termination, Internet Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
U.S. District Judge in Philadelphia has dismissed a class action
complaint against Comcast that had been filed on behalf of a class
of Comcast Business Class Service customers who had claimed the
cable giant violated contract terms with the plaintiffs by
charging them early termination and Internet equipment fees.

In a May 17 memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois,
sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the litigation, writing that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to handle the case.

The plaintiffs, Datascope Analytics LLC, Hansen IP Law PLLC and
Robbie Simmons, filed their class action complaint on Feb. 1 of
this year, nearly two months after they filed a near identical
suit in the Northern District of Illinois, the record shows.

Before the plaintiffs had filed their motion to certify the class
in that case, which was filed in early December of last year,
however, Comcast reached out to the plaintiffs' attorneys and
offered "full and complete relief," which included $635.70 to
Datascope, which was the amount paid for services from the time it
alleged it would have cancelled its service until the time it
actually cancelled the service; $337 for Hansen IP Law, which was
the early termination fee it had paid; and $134.88 to plaintiff
Robbie Simmons, the amount he paid for services after he allegedly
gave notice of his intent to cancel his Comcast account.

Simmons was also offered $12 for the additional equipment fees he
alleged he was charged, the court record shows.

The three plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their Illinois federal
case on Jan. 31 of this year, according to the record.

Comcast reached out to the plaintiffs' attorneys the following day
requesting information in order to process the payments, but the
plaintiffs' lawyers responded by saying they decided to refuse the
settlement offer, and instead informed Comcast's lawyers that an
action had been filed at the federal courthouse in Philadelphia.

The plaintiffs desired to have a judge certify either a national
class or, alternatively, a class made up of plaintiffs from
Illinois, Michigan and Indiana.

Comcast filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, arguing that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no case
of controversy because the cable company offered complete relief
to the plaintiffs prior to the filing of this case; two of the
plaintiffs failed to properly allege their citizenship; the
plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a breach of contract
claim; and the plaintiffs' demand for incidental, consequential or
punitive damages must be stricken.

In his May 17 memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Jan E.
DuBois wrote that because the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, he doesn't need to address the remaining arguments
before denying class certification and closing the case.

Judge DuBois essentially agreed with Comcast's position that
because the defendant had offered complete relief to the
individual plaintiffs before the filing of both the class action
complaint and the motion for class certification, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs had contended that the court shouldn't consider the
Illinois action since that case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

"Plaintiffs' attempt to disregard the prior action in Illinois and
to label the offer incomplete for failing to address potential
class claims are unavailing," Judge DuBois wrote.  "The
controversy between the parties ended when defendant offered
complete relief on January 18, 2013, and plaintiffs accordingly
lacked standing to file the Class Complaint after that offer."

The judge also ruled that Comcast is not required to address the
potential class claims in order to moot the case.

"Therefore, since plaintiffs' claims were mooted before the filing
of the Class Complaint and Motion for Class Certification, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the Class Complaint
must be dismissed."


CVS CAREMARK: First Circuit Revives Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the First
Circuit on May 24 revived a CVS Caremark Corp. shareholder class
action accusing the company and three former top executives of
falsely touting that CVS and Caremark were successfully integrated
when, in fact, the integration was going poorly and drove off
several large customers.

The suit was filed by a group of pension funds.


DJO FINANCE: Defends Product Liability Suits Over Pain Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to disposable drug infusion pump products, according to
the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30,
2013.

The Company is currently named as one of several defendants in a
number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 40
plaintiffs in U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been
granted class action status, related to a disposable drug infusion
pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third party
manufacturers that the Company distributed through its Bracing and
Vascular segment.  The Company sold pumps manufactured by one
manufacturer from 1999 to 2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by
a second manufacturer from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued
its sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009.  These
cases have been brought against the manufacturers and certain
distributors of these pumps.  All of these lawsuits allege that
the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee
surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs.  In
the past three years, the Company has been dismissed from
approximately 400 cases when product identification was later
established showing that the Company did not sell the pump in
issue.  In the past three years, the Company has entered into
settlements with the plaintiffs in approximately 85 pain pump
lawsuits.

As of March 30, 2013, the range of potential loss for these claims
is not estimable, although the Company believes it has adequate
insurance coverage for such claims.

Headquartered in Vista, California, DJO Finance LLC is a global
developer, manufacturer and distributor of medical devices that
provide solutions for musculoskeletal health, vascular health and
pain management.  The Company's products are used by orthopedic
specialists, spine surgeons, primary care physicians, pain
management specialists, physical therapists, podiatrists,
chiropractors, athletic trainers and other healthcare
professionals.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Expresses Concern Over Wage Suit Discovery Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that
attorneys for Dollar General are concerned that they are being
forced to give a potential client list to plaintiffs' attorneys
representing a former employee in a class action lawsuit.

Steptoe & Johnson attorney Larry J. Rector, who is representing
Dollar General in the lawsuit, filed an emergency motion on May 9
that requests U.S. District Judge Gina Groh reconsider a discovery
order that requires the company to turn over contact information
for potential class members.

Stephanie N. Paulino filed the lawsuit in 2012, alleging the
company violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act
when it failed to pay her final wages within 72 hours of her
termination.

Dollar General says it is premature to offer information on former
employees who were fired within the past five years, as U.S.
Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert ordered on Feb. 8.

"If defendants are required to produce names and contact
information of the former employees, it will work manifest
injustice to the defendants and former non-party employees due to
(1) the irreversible nature of the production of names and contact
information and (2) the privacy interests of non-party employees,"
the motion says.

Dollar General is arguing that certification for the proposed
class is improper.  If it wins its argument, it will not be able
to undo the release of the contact information of former
employees, it says.

"Moreover, Plaintiff and her lawyers will have access to highly
confidential information to which they ultimately have no legal
need or right to effectively litigate this matter," the motion
says.

"Additionally, this confidential information could become a client
list for Plaintiff's counsel and result in further litigation for
Defendants which is fundamentally unjust and contrary to the
intent and purpose of class litigation and Rule 23."

Ms. Paulino and the proposed class are represented by Martinsburg
attorneys David Hammer -- of Hammer, Ferretti and Schiavoni -- and
Harry P. Waddell.  They filed a response to the emergency motion
on May 13, claiming it is Dollar General's fourth attempt to
restrict discovery on the same issue.

"Defendants' latest motion for reconsideration is frivolous and
without basis in law or fact, and, therefore, made with improper
purpose," the response says.

"Although Defendants deny that they seek to 'unnecessarily delay
these proceedings,' nearly seven months have passed without
Plaintiff having received the full discovery to which she is
entitled to under the Rules and as ordered successively by
Magistrate Judge Seibert and by this Court."

The response also says the conduct of Dollar General's attorneys
has needlessly slowed the pace of the case and added fees and
costs to Ms. Paulino's claims.

Previously, the two sides argued over $720 in attorneys' fees.

Dollar General was ordered to pay fees for extra work
Ms. Paulino's attorneys had to perform in order to fight a
discovery dispute.  Both Messrs. Hammer and Waddell requested fees
that amounted to $400 per hour, but Dollar General argued that
figure should be reduced to $300 per hour.

The total difference when considering the amount of time worked
was only $720. Groh agreed with Dollar General's argument and used
the $300 figure in an order filed May 13.

Overall, the fees and expenses awarded to Mr. Hammer were $7,620
and $1,800 to Mr. Waddell.


EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit in New York remains pending, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S.
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary
petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy
Court") case number 12-10202.  The Company's foreign subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Non-Filing Entities") were not part of the
Bankruptcy Filing.

Subsequent to the Company's Chapter 11 filing, between January 27,
2012, and March 22, 2012, several putative class action lawsuits
were filed in federal court in the Western District of New York,
as putative class action lawsuits, against the current and certain
former members of the Board of Directors ("Board"), the Company's
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP") Committee and certain former
and current executives of the Company.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation, and the current and former members of the
Board have been dismissed from those lawsuits.  The allegations
concern the decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged
impact on SIP and on the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan.
The Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
litigation.

The Company believes that the ERISA lawsuit is not uncommon for
companies in Chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in the case,
the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend it on their behalf.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/--
commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New
Jersey.


EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company's motion to dismiss a securities class
action lawsuit in New York remains pending, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S.
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary
petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy
Court") case number 12-10202.  The Company's foreign subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Non-Filing Entities") were not part of the
Bankruptcy Filing.

On February 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer,
the President and Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer, as a putative class action lawsuit under the federal
securities laws, claiming that certain Company statements
concerning the Company's business and financial results were
misleading (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez, Philip J.
Faraci, and Antoinette McCorvey).  The Court granted the Company's
July 2, 2012 motion to dismiss this case as against all defendants
but granted the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint against only
Mr. Perez and Ms. McCorvey (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M.
Perez and Antoinette McCorvey), in which they seek damages with
interest, equitable relief as applicable, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  Defendants have moved to dismiss the case.

The Company believes that the securities lawsuit is not uncommon
for companies in Chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in the
case, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
will vigorously defend it on their behalf.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/--
commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New
Jersey.


ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Colombia
---------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against class action lawsuits in Colombia, 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.

These are the most significant legal proceedings with claims above
$10,000 million, for which allowances have been recognized, in
accordance with the evaluations of the Company's internal and
external advisors:

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012:
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011:

Proceeding                            Lawsuit
----------            -------------------------------------
Garcero association   Class action lawsuit against Ecopetrol
contract              S.A., the Nation, the Ministry of Mines
                       and others, on the extension of the
                       Garcero association contract.

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012: $155,184
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011: $204,189

Municipalities of     Class action lawsuit.  Contributions to
Aguazul and Tauramena the solidarity and electric-power-
                       generation income redistribution fund,
                       pursuant to Law 142 of 1994.

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012: $220,044
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011: $139,688

Municipality of       Class action lawsuit.  Contributions to
Arauca                the solidarity and electric-power-
                       generation income redistribution fund,
                       pursuant to Law 142 of 1994.

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012: $283,010
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011: $121,051

Department of         Class action suit for the reassessment of
Tolima(*)             royalties with the 20% stipulated in Law
                       141 of 1994.

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012: $0
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011: $82,287

As at December 31, 2012, the balance of the allowance for legal
proceedings was $770,922 (2011, $682,158).

(*) The State Council, in its decision of May 30, 2012, issued on
     June 5, decreed null and void all of the proceedings in the
     Department of Tolima's contract litigation against Ecopetrol,
     Petrobras and Nexen, based on the ruling handed down by the
     Administrative Tribunal of Tolima on February 20, 2007, and
     made it binding on the Ministry of Mines and Energy.

These are the most significant legal proceedings of other
companies in the Corporate Group as at December 31, 2012, and
2011:

Group Company    Proceeding             Lawsuit
-------------    ----------             -------
Refineria de     Class action lawsuit   Lower court - Awaiting
Cartagena S.A.   - pro-Culture stamp    decision.

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012: $166
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011: $591

Refineria de     Class action lawsuit   Lower court - Beginning
Cartagena S.A.   - Contribution for     evidentiary phase.
                  self-generation of
                  power

Allowance amount at December 31, 2012: $154
Allowance amount at December 31, 2011: $1,181

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/-- is a vertically
integrated oil company with presence in Colombia, Peru, Brazil and
the U.S. Gulf Coast.  The Bogota, Colombia-based Company divides
its operations into four business segments: exploration and
production; transportation and logistics; refining and
petrochemicals; and marketing and supply.


ECOPETROL SA: Evidence Phase in Cano Limon Oil Spill Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence phase in the class action lawsuit arising from the
December 2011 Cano Limon - Covenas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill
remains pending, according to Ecopetrol S.A.'s April 29, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Due to natural causes occurring as a result of unusual movement of
soil and the tensioning of the pipeline, resulting from severe
weather conditions, on December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon - Covenas
oil pipeline ruptured and caused the spill of approximately 3,267
barrels of crude oil into the Iscala creek, which connects with
the Pamplonita River that provides water to the city of Cucuta.
The incident did not cause any fatalities or injuries.

On April 16, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit against it seeking monetary damages of approximately
Ps$85,936 billion related to the December 2011 Cano Limon -
Covenas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill.  The Colombian Attorney
General's Office filed a motion requesting the judge to require
the claimant to justify the amount.  The claimant reduced the
claim to Ps$11 billion.  However, the court appraised the damages
to be at the most Ps$298 million based on the number of people
involved in the class action.  The court set the date of the
conciliation hearing for October 23, 2012, but the claimant did
not attend and instead requested the court to set a new date for
the settlement hearing.  The court declined the request and
decided to continue with the proceeding.

As of April 29, 2013, the evidence phase is pending.  The
Company's legal counsel is of the view that this class action
lawsuit has only a remote possibility of success.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/-- is a vertically
integrated oil company with presence in Colombia, Peru, Brazil and
the U.S. Gulf Coast.  The Bogota, Colombia-based Company divides
its operations into four business segments: exploration and
production; transportation and logistics; refining and
petrochemicals; and marketing and supply.


EMERALD GRAIN: More Than 70 Growers & Traders to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbie Hinkley, writing for North Queensland Register, reports
that more than 70 growers and grain traders have registered their
interest in a potential class action against independent grain
marketing company Emerald Grain.

Granich Partners lawyer Nathan Draper confirmed the number after
launching a print advertising campaign asking interested parties
to join the dozen Wheatbelt growers who approached Granich
Partners with the initial idea of mounting a class action after
the loss of what they believed to be hundreds of thousands of
dollars in 2011/12 wheat and barley pool payments.

Mr. Draper said he was surprised by the strong response from WA
growers and also fielded calls from a local politician and number
of grain growers in South Australia and Queensland who wanted to
be involved in the potential class action following their recent
dealings with Emerald.  He said he had also been in touch with a
number of Emerald's WA and east coast trading opponents for help
in building the potential case.

"At this stage the potential class action is still very much in
its investigative phase," Mr. Draper said.

"Irrespective of their losses and the farmers' beliefs in the
validity or otherwise of the contracts, it would be in everybody's
best interests if they could contact us to help supply us with
information.

"A large number of growers we have spoken to, as well as relevant
heads of communities and associated entities, have taken it upon
themselves to spread the word."

Mr. Draper hoped to have another 100 growers on board within the
coming weeks so the firm could have its formal opinion formulated
within a month.

"Hopefully within the next two to three weeks we can have at least
150 interested parties providing us with their Emerald pool
contracts and information," he said.

From there, Mr. Draper said the process would involve enlisting
the help of a business expert to decide whether Emerald had
negligently managed its pools.  He said as with anything, Granich
Partners first needed to have evidence of what was being alleged
by growers and unfortunately it was going to come at a price.

"The State's growers have suffered in any event and we don't want
them forking out tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees,"
Mr. Draper said.

"We make it quite clear in our covering letters to interested
parties that no legal fees will be charged at this early stage or
for sending us their Emerald contracts."

He said interested parties would only become financially involved
when and if the appropriate agreements were signed in the future.

McCullough Robertson senior associate and agribusiness-specialist
lawyer Trent Thorne said despite being unaware of all the ins and
outs of the matter, the potential class action had the makings of
a landmark case for the WA grains industry.

Backed by his intimate knowledge of the Federal Government's
decision to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia and the questions
he raised over the Government's fiduciary obligations on the
matter, Mr. Thorne said there were a number of actions the
potential class action could take.

"There are multiple elements of risk involved with pool trading as
growers would be well aware," he said.

"Pool participants would have signed stringent contracts in the
benefit of Emerald and the prospect of winning a case in terms of
a breach of that contract would be limited.

"But that's not to preclude other legal avenues for growers if
representations have been made to them by Emerald that are either
misleading or deceptive or have the intention or the likelihood to
mislead or deceive them.

"Growers could certainly raise a course of action in that regard."

Mr. Thorne said the potential course of action could look to
conversations (but more likely documents) provided to growers by
Emerald which included the expected rates of return and things of
that nature.  He also said the class action could investigate
whether Emerald traders had acted in a negligible manner.

"Again, the legal team leading the potential class action would
need to pay really close attention to what was done internally in
terms of pool trading," Mr. Thorne said.

"What would need to be shown is that whoever was responsible for
the losses, whether it be one or a group of traders, showed
behavior which fell so far short of the standard that would
ordinarily be provided by a trader."

Mr. Thorne said an economist and an expert trader would need to be
liaised with in order to give an indication as to whether there
would be any likelihood of being able to extract that information
for a judge.  He also said acquiring the expert evidence for
alleged negligence and collating documents from Emerald could cost
AU$50,000 to AU$60,000.

"At the moment I see some significant hurdles but they're not
insurmountable hurdles at all given the case is still in its
investigative phase," Mr. Thorne said.

"If there's a need for a litigation funder to become involved a
matter like this could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Emerald has commented in previous articles that while pool
participants had the right to seek whatever legal recourse they
considered to be appropriate they should also note pools don't
guarantee returns and independent legal advice should be sought
after before committing to any kind of legal action.

The company also previously said it remained available to discuss
these matters with any of its customers.

Emerald declined to comment for this story.


ERA GROUP: Superior Offshore Class Suit Still Pending in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2013, SEACOR Holdings Inc. ("SEACOR") completed the
spin-off ("Spin-off") of Era Group Inc. by means of a dividend to
SEACOR's stockholders of all of the Company's issued and
outstanding common stock.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
SEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other
defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, Superior Offshore
International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438
(D. Del.).  The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated
federal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December
2005.  The purported class of plaintiffs included all direct
purchasers of such services and the relief sought included
compensatory damages and treble damages.  On September 4, 2009,
the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.  On
September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Complaint.  On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument
(the "Motions").  On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the
Motions, amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify
that the dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of
an amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with
respect to the new allegations in the amended Complaint.
Following the completion of such limited discovery, on
February 11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice.

On June 23, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment for
the Defendants.  On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On
July 27, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendants.  On August 9, 2011, the Defendants moved for certain
excessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1927 (the "Fee Motion").  On October 9, 2012, the District
Court denied the Fee Motion.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Era Group Inc. -- http://www.eragroupinc.com/-- was incorporated
in 1999 in Delaware and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The
Company is one of the largest helicopter operators in the world.
The Company also provides helicopters and related services to
third-party helicopter operators in other countries.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Sullivan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by Joseph S. Sullivan,
et al., according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Erie Indemnity Company ("Indemnity") was named as a defendant in a
complaint filed on August 1, 2012, by alleged subscribers of the
Erie Insurance Exchange (the "Exchange") in the Court of Common
Pleas Civil Division of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by Joseph
S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, Patricia R. Beltz, and Jenna L.
DeBord, trustees ad litem v. Erie Indemnity Co. (the "Sullivan"
lawsuit).

As subsequently amended, the complaint alleges that, beginning on
September 1, 1997, Indemnity retained "Service Charges"
(installment fees) and "Added Service Charges" (late fees and
policy reinstatement charges) on policies written by the Exchange
and its insurance subsidiaries, which allegedly should have been
paid to the Exchange, in the amount of approximately $308 million.
In addition to their claim for monetary relief on behalf of the
Exchange, the plaintiffs seek an accounting of all so-called
intercompany transactions between Indemnity and the Exchange from
1996 to date.  The Plaintiffs allege that Indemnity breached its
contractual, fiduciary, and equitable duties by retaining Service
Charges and Added Service Charges that should have been retained
by the Exchange.  The Plaintiffs bring these same claims under
three separate derivative-type theories.  First, the plaintiffs
purport to bring a lawsuit as members of the Exchange on behalf of
the Exchange.  Second, the plaintiffs purport to bring a lawsuit
as trustees ad litem on behalf of the Exchange.  Third, the
plaintiffs purport to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 1506 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure, which allows shareholders to bring a lawsuit
derivatively on behalf of a corporation or similar entity.

Indemnity removed the case from state court to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on the
basis that it was a class action subject to removal under the
Federal Class Action Fairness Act.  In October 2012, the federal
court remanded the case to state court.  Indemnity has appealed
the remand order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit heard the appeal in March 2013, and a decision has not yet
been rendered.  Indemnity has requested that the state court stay
all proceedings in the Sullivan action pending the outcome of the
appeal.

Indemnity filed a motion in the state court in November 2012
seeking dismissal of the lawsuit.  A hearing on that motion was
held by the state court in February 2013, but a decision has not
yet been rendered.

Discovery is in its early stages.  Indemnity believes that it has
meritorious legal and factual defenses and intends to vigorously
defend against all allegations and requests for relief in the
lawsuit.

Erie, Pennsylvania-based Erie Indemnity Company is a publicly held
Pennsylvania business corporation that has been the managing
attorney-in-fact for the subscribers (policyholders) at the Erie
Insurance Exchange since 1925.  The Exchange is a subscriber-
owned, Pennsylvania-domiciled reciprocal insurer that writes
property and casualty insurance.  Indemnity's primary function is
to perform certain services for the Exchange relating to the
sales, underwriting and issuance of policies on behalf of the
Exchange.


FOCUS MEDIA: Continues to Defend "Tom Palny" Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Media Holding Limited continues to defend a class action
lawsuit initiated by Tom Palny in New York, 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 December 12, 2011, Tom Palny filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current or former
officers and directors.  The complaint relates to certain
allegations made by the firm Muddy Waters about the Company in a
series of releases in November 2011, and alleges that the
Company's public filings, including its 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and
2010 Form 20-Fs, the Form F-1 and Prospectus filed in connection
with the Company's November 2007 follow-on public offering, and
third quarter 2011 earnings press release, contain material
misstatements and omissions.  The complaint's allegations,
include, but are not limited to, alleged misrepresentations
relating to the Company's acquisition, write-down and divestiture
of certain assets (including, without limitation, Allyes
Information Technology Company Limited, Shanghai OOH Advertisement
Co., Ltd. and other PRC subsidiaries under Hua Kuang (collectively
referred to as "OOH"), and certain mobile handset companies), and
the size and composition of the Company's LCD display network.  On
March 30, 2012, the court appointed Xuechen Yang as lead
plaintiff.  The Defendants have not yet been served with the
complaint.

The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously against
these allegations as it believes it has meritorious defenses to
the alleged claims.  However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will prevail in the lawsuit and any adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on its business operations and
results of operations.

Focus Media Holding Limited -- http://www.focusmedia.cn/-- is a
multi-platform digital media company, operating the largest LCD
display network in China using audiovisual digital displays in
commercial and residential locations.  The Company was
incorporated in Cayman Islands and is headquartered in Central,
Hong Kong.


FOCUS MEDIA: Merger-Related Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
A merger-related class action lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in
March 2013, according to Focus Media Holding Limited's April 29,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Focus Media Holding Limited and subsidiaries (the "Group")
announced on August 13, 2012, that their board of directors had
received a preliminary non-binding proposal letter, dated
August 12, 2012, from affiliates of FountainVest Partners, The
Carlyle Group, CITIC Capital Partners, CDH Investments and China
Everbright Limited and Mr. Jason Nanchun Jiang, the Company's
chairman and chief executive officer, and Mr. Jiang's affiliates
to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares for $27.00 in
cash per American depositary share ("ADS") or $5.40 in cash per
ordinary shares in a "going private" transaction.

On December 19, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement and plan of merger with Giovanna Parent Limited and
Giovanna Acquisition Limited.  Subject to the terms and conditions
of the merger agreement, at the effective time of the merger,
Giovanna Acquisition Limited will merge with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Giovanna Parent Limited, or the merger.

Immediately after the completion of the merger, Giovanna Parent
Limited will be indirectly beneficially owned by Jason Nanchun
Jiang; affiliates of and funds managed by Giovanna Investment
Holdings Limited, an entity owned and controlled by Carlyle Asia
Partners III, L.P.; Gio2 Holdings Ltd., an entity owned and
controlled by FountainVest China Growth Capital Fund, L.P.,
FountainVest China Growth Capital Fund II, L.P., and their
respective parallel funds and affiliates; Power Star Holdings
Limited, an entity owned and controlled by CITIC Capital China
Partners II, L.P. and its affiliates; State Success Limited, an
entity owned and controlled by affiliates of China Everbright
Structured Investment Holdings Limited; and Fosun International
Limited and/or its affiliates, or, collectively, the consortium.
Jason Nanchun Jiang and Fosun International Limited and their
respective affiliates, collectively, currently beneficially own,
in the aggregate, approximately 35.7% of the Company's outstanding
ordinary shares (excluding outstanding options and restricted
share units).

On February 22, 2013, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Group, the Company's
directors, Giovanna Parent Limited and Giovanna Acquisition
Limited.  The complaint relates to the definitive agreement and
plan of merger, or the going private merger agreement, entered
into with Giovanna Parent Limited and Giovanna Acquisition Limited
on December 19, 2012.  The Plaintiff alleged, among other things,
that the Company's directors violated their duties under the
Cayman Islands Companies Law by agreeing to the merger following
an unfair process and at an inadequate price, that the going
private merger agreement contains preclusive deal protection
devices, and that the disclosures made concerning the merger do
not fairly and adequately disclose all material information to
shareholders.  The complaint asserted claims (i) for violation of
Securities Exchange Act Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9, (ii) for
violation of Exchange Act Section 20(a), and (iii) for oppression
pursuant to Section 92(e) of the Cayman Companies Code.  The
Plaintiff sought injunctive relief barring consummation of the
transaction, a directive to the individual defendants to comply
with their duties under applicable law, and rescission of, to the
extent already consummated, the transaction.

The Company was served with the complaint on March 7, 2013.  On
March 19, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  On March 26, 2013, the named plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

Focus Media Holding Limited -- http://www.focusmedia.cn/-- is a
multi-platform digital media company, operating the largest LCD
display network in China using audiovisual digital displays in
commercial and residential locations.  The Company was
incorporated in Cayman Islands and is headquartered in Central,
Hong Kong.


FORD MOTOR: Issues Three Recalls for 2013 Models Over Fuel Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Henkel and David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News,
report that Ford Motor Co. issued three recalls for 2013 models on
May 31, including calling back 465,000 vehicles for fire risks
after 600 complaints of fuel leaks.

The new recalls are the latest in a series of quality issues
facing the Dearborn automaker during the last year as it has
issued repeated recalls for many of its most popular new vehicles.
It also announced on May 31 small recalls of the 2013 Lincoln MKZ
because insulation on the engine block heater cord could catch
fire and of 2013 Ford Fusions that could have improperly assembled
steering gears, which could cause loss of steering ability.

The first recall, for potentially leaky fuel tanks, affects
465,000 vehicles -- 390,000 of them in the U.S. -- including 2013
Ford Explorer, Taurus, Flex, Fusion and Police Interceptor
utilities and sedans, and Lincoln MKS, MKT and MKZ vehicles.  Ford
said it received 600 fuel leak complaints as of March 31.

"The condition could result in customers detecting a fuel odor, or
in some cases, observe evidence of a fuel leak on the ground,"
Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker said in an email.  "While a fuel
leak in the presence of an ignition source may result in a fire,
there have been no reports of fires.  We are not aware of any
accidents or injuries attributed to this condition."

Ford is also recalling 500 of its new 2013 Lincoln MKZ midsize
sedans -- 100 in the U.S. and the rest in Canada -- equipped with
engine block heaters.  The automaker says the insulation on the
engine block heater electrical cord has the potential to crack in
temperatures of minus-4 degrees or colder.  A cracked cord could
potentially expose wiring, increasing the risk of electrical shock
and corrosion.

The Dearborn automaker is also recalling 23 of its new 2013 Fusion
midsize sedans -- 20 in the U.S. -- for steering gears that may
have been built without an internal retaining clip.  That flaw
could result in impaired steering or loss of steering control.

The recalls are another black eye for the launch of the Ford
Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, which share the same platform and are
built at the same assembly plant in Hermosillo, Mexico.

The new Fusion, which debuted last fall, was recalled last year
for problems stemming from its 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine. Engine
leaks and related fire risks prompted the recalls.  Engine
overheating can lead to fluid leaks, which could come in contact
with a hot exhaust, resulting in a fire.  A software fix was
supposed to fix the problem -- and it did, for most owners.

But follow-up tests revealed the need for additional repairs on
some engines.  At one point, Ford said about 1,400 Fusions and
Escapes, including some on dealer lots, were not drivable because
of a parts shortage.

Most recently, the new MKZ, which was slated to launch in December
but arrived as many four months late to some dealerships, had to
be shipped from Ford's Hermosillo plant to its Flat Rock Assembly
Plant for additional quality inspections.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally said earlier this year the number of recalls
for 2013 models wasn't a problem, but instead a sign that the
automaker was focused on quality.  "We learned from every one of
them," he said.

Last year Ford recalled more than 1.4 million vehicles.  So far
this year it has recalled more than 700,000.

The latest recalls come days after the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration said it was opening a preliminary
investigation into 400,000 2011-2013 Ford F-150 trucks with 3.5L
EcoBoost engines.  There have been 95 complaints alleging
unexpected sharp reductions in engine power during hard
acceleration at highway speeds.


G6 HOSPITALITY: Faces ADA Class Action Over Inaccessible Pools
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Suayan, writing for The Southeast Texas Legal Record, reports
that G6 Hospitality Property LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
alleging it is not complying with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The litigation, initiated May 20 in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas by plaintiff Dana Bowman, claims G6,
doing business as Motel 6, failed "to design, construct and/or own
or operate hotel facilities that are fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, disabled people."

"The defendant's hotels, which are places of public accommodation,
have barriers to use of the pools," the suit says.

"The defendant's pools do not have a fixed pool lift or other
acceptable means of entry for disabled persons, notwithstanding
that such modifications are readily achievable."

Ms. Bowman, a retired Army sergeant first class, asserts that he
called the respondent prior to visiting Houston on business to see
if its hotels' pools had some means of access for the disabled
such as himself only to be told there were none, adding he
"independently" verified the absence of a pool lift at the
facilities.

"The existence of barriers to use the pool at the defendant's
hotels deterred the plaintiff from staying at the defendant's
hotels," the suit says.

According to the original petition, the respondent "does not have
a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make all of its
hotels fully accessible to and independently usable by disabled
people."

A jury trial is requested.

Attorney Eric G. Calhoun -- eric@travislaw.com -- of Travis &
Calhoun PC in Dallas is representing the complainant.

Case No. 4:13-CV-1453


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: FDA Panel Wants Avandia Safety Measure Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal health experts are recommending changes to safety
restrictions on former blockbuster diabetes pill Avandia, in light
of a new analysis suggesting that the drug may not increase the
risk of heart attack as previously believed.

A majority of Food and Drug Administration advisers voted on
June 6 to modify or remove measures that currently limit patient
access to GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia.  Among other requirements,
patients currently must sign a waiver that they understand the
drug's risks before getting a prescription.

The panel ruling is a belated victory for British drugmaker Glaxo
after more than a half-decade defending the safety of its product,
which was once the best-selling diabetes drug in the world. Sales
began plummeting in 2007 after researchers first raised questions
about possible links to heart attack.  After three years of
debate, the FDA limited access to the drug in 2010 and European
regulators banned the pill altogether.

Of the panel's 26 experts, 13 voted to modify safety restrictions
on Avandia while seven voted to remove them entirely.  Five
panelists voted to keep the measures in place without any changes,
while one panelist voted to withdraw Avandia completely.

The vote is a recommendation to the FDA and is not binding.

The FDA convened a two-day meeting to consider a new analysis of
Avandia's cardiovascular safety performed by Duke University's
Clinical Research Institute.

Researchers there reexamined the lone GlaxoSmithKline PLC study
specifically designed to measure Avandia's heart risks.  The
original study's results have been called into question since they
were first released in 2009, due to design flaws and inconsistent
reporting of heart attacks.  Panelists said the reanalysis
bolstered their confidence that Avandia does not increase the risk
of heart attack more than older diabetes medicines.

"I'm considerably reassured, in light of the reanalysis, that the
magnitude of risk we're talking about here is not very great,"
said Dr. Dale Hammerschmidt of the University of Minnesota, who
voted to modify the safety limits.

Under the FDA's current risk-evaluation management strategy, or
REMS, Avandia can only be dispensed by specially pharmacies.  Like
patients, physicians must sign a waiver stating that they
understand the drug's risks and that their patients have not
responded to any other diabetes medications.  Those requirements
have essentially cratered prescriptions for the drug.  Just 3,000
people in the U.S. are currently taking Avandia, down from 250,000
in 2010. Many panelists said they now believe the restrictions are
too severe.

"I believe relaxing the REMS would put this on a more even playing
field with other drugs with similar risks," said Dr. Elaine
Morrato, of the University of Colorado.

Most panelists said some restrictions are still warranted, such as
patient brochures discussing the drug's risks.  Panelists also
favored registering patients to track their health while on
Avandia.

Glaxo's chief medical officer said in a statement: "We continue to
believe that Avandia is a safe and effective treatment option for
type 2 diabetes."

But even if regulators relax limits on Avandia, it's highly
unlikely the drug will regain its blockbuster status.

"It's very difficult to rehabilitate a drug, any drug, after it's
been through a process like this," said Rebecca Killion, the
panel's patient representative.

The meeting marked the third time that the FDA assembled its
experts to answer a seemingly basic question: Does Avandia
increase the risk of heart attacks? A firm answer has proved
elusive, in part because patients with diabetes are already
predisposed to heart problems.  That makes it extremely difficult
to tell which heart attacks are drug-related and which are simply
a result of the underlying disease.

The initial concerns about Avandia came from outside researchers
who pooled thousands of reports of heart attack and stroke from
dozens of unrelated studies. One of these so-called meta-analyses
combined 42 studies and appeared to show a higher risk of heart
attack among patients taking Avandia compared to other diabetes
drugs.

The FDA added a boxed warning about heart attack risks to Avandia
in 2007, while noting the shortcomings of the analysis that
produced the concern.  FDA leadership generally argues that mixing
data from multiple studies can lead to misleading trends and
conclusions.  The agency tries to base its decisions on head-to-
head controlled clinical trials, which most medical experts
consider the gold standard of research.

That has focused the agency's attention on the RECORD trial, a
six-year study of 4,400 patients that compared heart attack rates
in patients taking Avandia versus metformin and sulphonylurea, a
standard drug combination for diabetics.  The initial results
reported by Glaxo in 2009 showed no signal for heart attacks, but
those findings have been questioned because of missing data and
other issues.

Under instructions from the FDA, Glaxo hired Duke University to
reanalyze the RECORD study, reviewing each report of heart attack
or stroke at a patient-by-patient level.  Duke's findings matched
Glaxo's initial conclusion: Avandia did not appear to increase the
risk of heart attack.

At least one FDA reviewer said that Duke's review was not truly
independent, since the university was paid $3 million by Glaxo and
relied on records provided by the drugmaker.

FDA leadership said there was no evidence of "systematic or
intentional manipulation" of the RECORD reevaluation. The agency's
panelists almost uniformly backed that conclusion.


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Settles Gender Bias Class Action for $200MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that Greenberg Traurig
LLP has settled a proposed $200 million employee gender bias class
action alleging the firm discriminated against its female
shareholders, according to joint motions to dismiss filed by the
parties in New York and Pennsylvania federal courts on May 24.

The settlement comes almost three months after Greenberg and
onetime shareholder Francine Friedman Griesing told a judge that
they agreed to mediate claims to sidestep lengthy litigation.
Ms. Griesing and Greenberg said they expected to schedule and
complete mediation within 70 days.


GULF SOUTH: Defends Suit Over Release of Mercaptan in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, is defending a class action
lawsuit alleging personal injury and property damage related to an
alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Gulf South and several other defendants, including Mobile Gas
Service Corporation (MGSC), have been named as defendants in six
lawsuits, including one purported class action lawsuit, commenced
by multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of Mobile County,
Alabama.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for personal
injury and property damage related to an alleged release of
mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities in Eight Mile,
Alabama.  Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC, the local
distribution company for that region, at Whistler Junction where
MGSC odorizes the gas prior to delivery to end user customers by
injecting mercaptan into the gas stream, as required by law.  The
cases are: Parker, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case
No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al.
(Case No. CV-12-901057), Austin, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service
Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133), Moore, et al. v. Mobile Gas
Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v.
Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490) and Joel
G. Reed, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-922265).  Gulf South has denied liability.  Gulf South has
demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South against all liability
related to these matters pursuant to a right-of-way agreement
between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims against
MGSC for any such liability.  MGSC has also filed cross-claims
against Gulf South seeking indemnity and other relief from Gulf
South.

The Company says the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at
this time; however, based on the facts and circumstances presently
known, in the opinion of management, these cases will not be
material to Gulf South's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Gulf South's transportation services consist of firm natural gas
transportation, where the customer pays a capacity reservation
charge to reserve pipeline capacity at certain receipt and
delivery points along the Company's pipeline system, plus a
commodity and fuel charge on the volume of natural gas actually
transported, and interruptible natural gas transportation, where
the customer pays to transport gas only when capacity is available
and used.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Still Defends Suits Over Claim Underpayment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is involved in other
kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for
substantial amounts.  These actions include, among others,
putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of
a state or national class.  Such putative class actions have
alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper
underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of
insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile,
property, disability, life and inland marine.  The Hartford also
is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are
sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of
insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business
practices.  Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been
joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other
things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the
dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade
practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders
in the underlying asbestos cases.  Management expects that the
ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after
consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be
material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford.
Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in
certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of
litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to
time, have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual
periods.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
investment products and life and property and casualty insurance
to both individual and business customers in the United States of
America.  The Company is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.


HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Bostick" Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit in California,
according to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Herbalife has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed April 8, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Bostick v. Herbalife
International of America, Inc., et al) challenging the legality of
the Company's network marketing program under various state and
federal laws.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and plans to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Herbalife Ltd. -- http://ir.Herbalife.com-- is a global nutrition
company that sells weight-management, nutrition and personal care
products intended to support a healthy lifestyle.  Herbalife
products are sold in more than 80 countries to and through a
network of independent distributors.  The Company is headquartered
in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Still Defends MERS-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2012, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated was named
a defendant in a putative class action filed on behalf of all
88 counties in Ohio against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other
financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system (MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording
of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law
and seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required
to record every mortgage and assignment on real property located
in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The
complaint also seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although
Huntington has not been named as a defendant in the other cases,
similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated -- http://www.huntington.com/
-- is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company
organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides
full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage
banking services, automobile financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
customized insurance service programs, and other financial
products and services.


INTEL CORP: Hearing in Delaware MDL Scheduled for July 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for July 2013 in the multidistrict
litigation pending in Delaware, according to Intel Corporation's
April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts.  These actions generally repeat the
allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against the
Company by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in June 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation).
Like the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that
the Company engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman
Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and
rebates to the Company's manufacturer and distributor customers
conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly
unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its
microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches;
and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry
standards-setting groups.  The class actions allege various
consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have
been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing the
Company's microprocessors.  The Company disputes these class-
action claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain PCs containing products
sold by the Company.  In July 2010, the Special Master issued a
Report and Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a
class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's Report, and a hearing on those objections was held in
March 2011.

In September 2012, the court ruled that an evidentiary hearing
will be necessary to enable the court to rule on the objections to
the Special Master's Report, to resolve the motion to certify the
class, and to resolve a separate motion to exclude certain
testimony and evidence from the MDL plaintiffs' expert.  The
hearing is scheduled to occur in July 2013.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing.
At the Company's request, the court in the California actions has
agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware
district court rules on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings.
Based on the procedural posture and the nature of these cases,
including, but not limited to, the fact that the Delaware district
court has requested an evidentiary hearing and has not yet ruled
on class certification issues, the Company cannot make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from these matters.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The Company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  Intel Corporation was founded in 1968 and
is based in Santa Clara, California.


INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment in McAfee Acquisition Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholder litigation arising
from the acquisition of McAfee, Inc., appealed a summary judgment
granted in favor of Intel Corporation, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that the Company had
agreed to acquire all of McAfee's common stock for $48.00 per
share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction.  The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty.  The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount.  In
June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value
of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013.  In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012.  In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial.  In April
2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of
Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the
court of appeal denied in July 2012.

In August 2012, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.  The trial court granted that motion in November 2012,
and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013.  In April
2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, the Company says it cannot
make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this matter.  The Company disputes
the class-action claims and intends to continue to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The Company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products.  Intel Corporation was founded in 1968 and
is based in Santa Clara, California.


ITAU UNIBANCO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stabilization Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From 1986 to 1994, the Brazilian federal government implemented
several consecutive monetary stabilization plans to combat hyper-
inflation.  In order to implement these plans, the Brazilian
federal government enacted several laws based on its power to
regulate the monetary and financial systems as granted by the
Brazilian federal constitution.

Holders of savings accounts during the periods when the monetary
stabilization plans were implemented have challenged the
constitutionality of the laws that implemented those plans,
claiming from the banks where they held their savings accounts
additional amounts of interest based on the inflation rates
applied to savings accounts under the monetary stabilization
plans.

Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. is a defendant in numerous standardized
lawsuits filed by individuals in respect of the monetary
stabilization plans.  The Company records provisions for such
claims upon receipt of summons to present a defense.

In addition, the Company is a defendant in class actions, similar
to the lawsuits by individuals, filed by either (i) consumer
protection associations or (ii) public attorneys' office
(Ministerio Publico) on behalf of holders of savings accounts.
Holders of savings accounts may collect any amount due based on
such a decision.  The Company records provisions when individual
plaintiffs apply to enforce such decisions, using the same
criteria used to determine provisions for individual lawsuits.

The Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) has issued
some decisions in favor of the holders of savings accounts, but
has not issued a final ruling with respect to the
constitutionality of the monetary stabilization plans as
applicable to savings accounts.  In relation to a similar dispute
with respect to the constitutionality of monetary stabilization
plans as applicable to time deposits and other private agreements
the Federal Supreme Court has decided that the laws were in
accordance with the federal constitution.  Due to this
contradiction, the Confederacao Nacional do Sistema Financeiro
("Consif"), an association of Brazilian financial institutions,
filed a special proceeding with the Federal Supreme Court
(Arguicao de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n 165), in
which the Central Bank has filed an amicus brief, arguing that
holders of savings accounts did not incur actual damages and that
the monetary stabilization plans as applicable to savings accounts
were in accordance with the federal constitution.

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.

Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. -- http://www.itau-unibanco.com/ir/--
formerly Banco Itau Holding Financeira S.A. is a financial holding
company headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  The Company's
principal operations include commercial banking, corporate and
investment banking and consumer credit.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls Oral Contraceptive Packages Outside US
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Johnson, writing for the Associated Press, reports that
Johnson & Johnson said on June 4 that it's conducting a voluntary
recall of millions of oral contraceptive packages in 43 countries
outside the U.S., but that there's a "very low" risk that the
flawed tablets could cause unplanned pregnancies.

It's the latest in a continuing string of about 40 product recalls
announced by the New Brunswick, N.J., health care giant since
2009.

The birth control pills are being recalled -- from pharmacies and
wholesalers, but not women -- because tests last month showed one
of the two hormones in them was being released slower than it
should.  The recall technically covers all 179 lots, or batches,
of the contraceptive Cilest distributed since 2011 in Europe, Asia
and Latin America.  Each lot contains about 180,000 monthly
contraceptive packages, meaning more than 32.2 million packages
are covered.  But only about 800,000 packages are estimated to
still be in inventory at wholesalers and drugstores.

Medicine manufacturers are required to hold back samples from the
lots they produce for periodic stability testing.  While the two-
year-old packages had been fine, tests last month showed that the
female hormone in the pills, norgestimate, was no longer
dissolving at the specified rate, said Michelle Romano, a
spokeswoman for J&J's Janssen Pharmaceuticals business.  To be on
the safe side, all the batches made since then were recalled, she
said.

"There's no impact on safety or efficacy. Women are not likely to
get pregnant," so the packages are not being recalled from
individual consumers, Ms. Romano said.  She said women with
questions should contact their doctor.

J&J has been grappling with trying to upgrade manufacturing
plants, including rebuilding a consumer health products factory
from the ground up, while it slowly restores supply of recalled
products to the market.  The company is operating under an
agreement with the Food and Drug Administration requiring
increased inspections and oversight at the factories involved. And
the lost product sales and the factory upgrades have cost J&J well
over $1 billion.

The prior recalls mostly covered nonprescription medicines such as
adult and children's Tylenol and Motrin, but have included faulty
hip implants, contact lenses, and a couple of prescription
medicines.  Reasons range from contamination with bacteria and
incorrect levels of a drug's active ingredient to liquid medicines
that may contain metal particles and nauseating smells on
containers.

J&J CEO Alex Gorsky and his predecessor, Bill Weldon, have pledged
to resolve problems, but they continue.

Over the last four months, J&J has recalled Adept hip implants
that were failing and had to be replaced prematurely, OneTouch
VerioIQ blood glucose meters that shut off rather than issuing a
warning when blood sugar levels get dangerously high, Children's
Tylenol made in South Korea that contained too much acetaminophen
and versions of K-Y Jelly personal lubricant that potentially
never got required regulatory approval.

"They haven't fixed their manufacturing and their quality control
problems," Erik Gordon, a pharmaceuticals analyst and a professor
at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, wrote in an
email interview.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Transvaginal Mesh Affects Women on Global Scale
------------------------------------------------------------------
DrugWatch reports that thousands of American women fighting to get
their voices heard and draw awareness to the life-changing
complications of transvaginal mesh are not alone.  The problems
surrounding these controversial implants affect women on a global
scale, and victims and their families are banding together to
support one another and draw attention to the issue.

Transvaginal mesh is a synthetic net-like piece of plastic that is
inserted through the vagina to treat pelvic organ prolapse, a
condition in which organs sag or fall into the vagina because of
weakened pelvic floor muscles.  When a smaller piece of surgical
mesh is used to treat stress urinary incontinence, it is called a
bladder sling.

Instead of fixing the problems, a number of women face
complications far worse than prolapse or incontinence: mesh
eroding through the vaginal wall, nerve damage, severe pain, organ
perforation, multiple surgeries and hospitalizations and failed
marriages.

Despite calls to ban the device from watchdog groups like Public
Citizen in the United States, government health agencies in many
countries have not issued a ban.

In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously stated
that complications from mesh devices were "rare."  In 2011, the
agency changed its statement to say that complications are not
rare.  The FDA also said women who received transvaginal mesh
implants were at greater risk and there was no evidence of
clinical benefit to the procedure.

One of the ways women in the United States and the rest of the
world choose to voice their concerns is by filing lawsuits.

In the United States, women filed more than 18,000 federal
lawsuits and 4,000 state lawsuits.  Women in Canada, Scotland,
Britain, Australia and New Zealand wage their own battles against
mesh companies that failed to warn them of serious side effects.
Class-action suits are underway in Canada and Australia.

In addition, several mesh support groups in these countries use
the power of social media and the Internet to warn other women,
tell their own stories and find support.
Scottish Women Demand Government Action

In Scotland, women faced with mesh complications appealed to the
government to take action.

One Scottish mesh recipient, Linda McLaughlin, told the Daily
Record and Sunday Mail that the troubles with mesh are a
"scandal."  The 57-year-old teaching assistant is one of hundreds
of women who suffered because of mesh in Scotland.  After
9 surgeries, she was left with severe nerve damage.

Ms. McLaughlin is one of 14 women that met with Scottish health
secretary Alex Neil and deputy chief medical officer Frances
Elliot in early May 2013.  At the meeting, women demanded a
special register to keep track of the potentially dangerous
implants.

"Until now there appears to have been a conspiracy of silence
where consultants have kept our suffering and problems to
themselves.  We were all told our cases were unique when that is
clearly not the case.  That is totally unacceptable,"
Ms. McLaughlin told the newspaper.

Health secretary Neil is sensitive to the women's plight.

In an interview with the same newspaper, he issued a statement to
the victims: "We need to make sure we have answers so that no one
else has to go through the horrible experience you have been
through.  But there is a real responsibility on manufacturers who
made this material to work with the NHS in Scotland to get these
problems solved and help these women who have been adversely
affected."

The Scottish government is now considering the creation of a
national register that will include data from England.
Canadian Protesters Warn Others of Mesh Dangers

In Canada, women rallied in front of Saskatoon City Hospital in
May 2013 to spread awareness of mesh dangers.  In 2010, Health
Canada warned hospitals and doctors about complications with mesh,
but it came too late for many women.

In 2012, Canadian plaintiffs filed a class-action suit against
mesh manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.  According to Law 360, the
suits filed were over medical problems such as nerve damage and
fistulas -- abnormal holes or passageways between organs.

In addition to the complications caused my mesh, Canadian women
also have difficulty finding local doctors who will remove faulty
implants.  Some women at the May rally like Saskatchewan resident
Marika English suffered immediate pain after mesh was implanted,
and in a few weeks it cut through her bladder.

She told CBC News that the pain was "like a vice grip clamping
onto [her] stomach with, like, razor blades on it." The Canadian
traveled to California and paid $30,000 to have the mesh removed.

Along with other women, Ms. English petitioned the Canadian
government to pay for their treatment in the United States because
doctors in Canada appear to not know how to remove the mesh or are
unwilling to.

Canadian doctors and officials disagree.

Dustin Duncan, Saskatchewan's minister of Health, told CBC News
that there are at least nine Canadian surgeons who can do the mesh
removal procedure.  Urologist Jacques Corcos of Montreal's Jewish
General Hospital told CTV News: "I think each province in Canada
has sufficiently well-trained physicians to do this kind of work."

However, some doctors in the United States like Atlanta surgeon
Dr. John Miklos caution that mesh removal surgery is "not for the
average surgeon" because of its complicated nature.

According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Canadian Health Minister
Theresa Oswald pushed the federal government to review
transvaginal mesh.

      Mesh Class Action May Be Largest in Australian History

At the end of 2012, a group of Australian women started a class-
action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson over the company's
transvaginal mesh products.

One Australian attorney involved in the class action, Rebecca
Jancauskas, estimates that 20,000 Australian women had mesh
implanted.  She told ABC News in Australia, "This prolapse mesh
class action that we've commenced in the Federal Court today has
the potential to be the biggest product class action that
Australia has ever seen."

Lead plaintiff Julie Davis had mesh implanted after a traumatic
birth caused her to suffer from prolapsing organs, but the surgery
left her unable to walk without pain, chronically fatigued and
with severe depression.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia's health agency,
reviewed transvaginal mesh in 2010, but found that "compared to
the number of women who had received a mesh insertion, the number
of complications was low."

The Australian class action has since called attention to the fact
that manufacturers introduced mesh into the market without any
pre-market testing.

The Internet has connected many of these women across borders, and
it has become a global forum.  For many women suffering mesh
complications, educating others about the potential problems of
this procedure has become a personal goal.

American nurse Linda Gross -- who recently won an $11 million
verdict against Johnson & Johnson -- spoke out in support of mesh
victims in Scotland.  She told the Daily Record and Sunday Mail,
"I'd like the women in Scotland and the rest of the UK to know I
am behind their campaign all the way and will continue to offer my
support."


KT CORP: Appeals in Suit Over 2G PCS Termination Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuit arising from the termination
of KT Corporation's second generation Personal Communications
Service (or 2G PCS) services remain pending, 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.

As part of the Company's decision to apply for reallocation of the
20 MHz bandwidth in the 1.8 GHz spectrum, the Company applied to
the Korea Communications Commission to terminate the Company's 2G
PCS services, and on November 23, 2011, the Korea Communications
Commission approved the Company's plan.  However, on November 30,
2011, approximately 900 of the Company's 2G PCS service
subscribers filed a class-action lawsuit against the Korea
Communications Commission for its approval of the Company's plan,
claiming that the Company used improper means to reduce its 2G PCS
subscribers to comply with regulatory requirements before
terminating the 2G PSC services and that the Korea Communications
Commission did not consider such factor in approving the Company's
plan.  On December 6, 2011, the Seoul Administrative Court issued
a preliminary injunction, which temporarily suspended the
Company's termination of the 2G PCS services until the case went
to trial.  The Company immediately appealed the decision and the
Seoul High Court overruled the preliminary injunction on
December 26, 2011, and reinstated the Korea Communications
Commission's approval.  Accordingly, the Company terminated its 2G
PCS services in the Seoul metropolitan area and began the
termination process for the rest of Korea on January 3, 2012.

On January 12, 2012, the 2G subscribers filed an appeal of the
Seoul High Court's decision with the Supreme Court of Korea, and
on February 1, 2012, the Supreme Court of Korea denied such
appeal.  On January 17, 2012, trial for the original class-action
lawsuit filed by the 2G subscribers began in the Seoul
Administrative Court.  On May 8, 2012, the Seoul Administrative
court ruled in the Company's favor on all claims and the
plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court.
On September 15, 2012, the Seoul High Court denied the plaintiffs'
appeal, and the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme
Court of Korea.

On February 15, 2013, the Supreme Court of Korea denied the
plaintiffs' appeal.  There are currently three other similar
appeals pending in the Supreme Court of Korea.  The Company
expects these appeals to also be resolved in its favor.

Headquartered in Gyeonggi-do, Korea, KT Corporation --
http://www.kt.com/-- is a telecommunications service provider in
Korea.  As an integrated telecommunications service provider, the
Company's principal services include mobile telecommunications
services, telephone services, and broadband Internet access
service and other Internet-related services.


LAKELAND BANCORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On January 28, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Somerset Hills Bancorp,
pursuant to which Somerset will merge with and into the Company.
The Merger Agreement provides that the shareholders of Somerset
Hills Bancorp will receive, at their election, for each
outstanding share of Somerset Hills Bancorp common stock that they
own at the effective time of the merger, either 1.1962 shares of
Lakeland Bancorp common stock or $12.00 in cash, subject to
proration as described in the Merger Agreement, so that 90% of the
aggregate merger consideration will be shares of Lakeland Bancorp
common stock and 10% will be cash.  Lakeland Bancorp expects to
issue an aggregate of 5,780,883 shares of its common stock in the
merger, and will also assume outstanding Somerset Hills Bancorp
stock options (which will be converted into options to purchase
Lakeland Bancorp common stock).  The transaction is valued at
approximately $64.4 million in the aggregate (excluding the
assumption of stock options), or $12.00 per share.

On or about April 4, 2013, the Company and Somerset began mailing
the definitive joint proxy statement and prospectus (the "Proxy
Statement") to their respective shareholders for their respective
Annual Meetings of Shareholders scheduled on May 8, 2013.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on February 8, 2013, a
Complaint was filed against Somerset and members of its Board of
Directors in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County,
seeking class action status and asserting that Somerset and the
members of its Board had violated their duties to Somerset's
shareholders in connection with the proposed transaction with the
Company.  The Complaint also alleged that the Company had aided
and abetted the individual defendants in their alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  On March 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint, alleging, among other things, inadequate
disclosure in the Proxy Statement.

All defendants vigorously deny all liabilities with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit, and specifically deny
that any supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law in connection with the Annual
Meetings of the Shareholders of the Company and Somerset.
However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely
affecting consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense
of defending the lawsuit, the defendants have agreed to a
settlement.

On April 26, 2013, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the lead plaintiff regarding settlement of the
action.  As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make
certain additional disclosures, which are contained in this
Current Report on Form 8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including the consummation of the merger and court approval
following notice.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement which, if finally approved by the Court, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the action being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosures made in
connection therewith.  The Court will also need to approve the
conditional certification of the class of plaintiffs at such
hearing.  In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that the lead plaintiff's counsel will
petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
be paid by Somerset and/or the Company.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation.  In the event that neither of these
occurs, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum
of Understanding may be terminated.  The settlement will not
affect the timing of consummation of the merger or the amount or
nature of the merger consideration to be paid to the shareholders
of Somerset in the merger.

Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.lakelandbank.com/-- is a
bank holding company headquartered in Oak Ridge, New Jersey.
Through Lakeland State Bank, the Company operates 46 banking
offices, located in Morris, Passaic, Sussex, Warren, Essex and
Bergen counties in New Jersey.  Lakeland Bank offers a full range
of lending services, including commercial loans and leases, real
estate and consumer loans to small and medium-sized businesses,
professionals and individuals located in its markets.


LINNCO LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Berry Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo LLC is facing a class action lawsuit arising from its
proposed acquisition of Berry Petroleum Company, according to the
Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On February 20, 2013, LinnCo and Berry Petroleum Company entered
into a definitive merger agreement under which LinnCo would
acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Berry.  Under the
terms of the agreement, Berry's shareholders will receive 1.25
LinnCo common shares for each Berry common share they own.  This
transaction, which is expected to be a tax-free exchange to
Berry's shareholders, represents value of $46.2375 per common
share, based on the closing price of LinnCo common shares on
February 20, 2013, the last trading day before public
announcement.

A purported stockholder class action has been filed against, among
others, Berry, LinnCo, LINN Energy and the members of the Berry
board of directors.  The action seeks an injunction barring or
rescinding the merger and damages in connection with the proposed
transactions.  If a final settlement is not reached, or if
dismissal of this action is not obtained, the Company says this
lawsuit could prevent or delay the completion of the merger, and
result in substantial costs to Berry, LinnCo and LINN Energy,
including costs associated with the indemnification of directors.
Additional lawsuits related to the merger may be filed against
Berry, LinnCo, LINN Energy and each of their directors.  The
defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the merger is completed may adversely
affect the combined company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.

LinnCo, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  As of March 31, 2013, LinnCo's sole purpose
was to own units representing limited liability company interests
in Linn Energy, LLC, and it had no significant assets or
operations other than those related to its interest in Linn
Energy.


MACQUARIE BANK: ASIC Appeals AU$82MM Storm Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the corporate
watchdog has appealed the Federal Court's recent decision to
approve an AU$82 million settlement between former Storm Financial
clients and Macquarie Bank Ltd.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) deputy
chairman Peter Kell said the settlement should be in the interests
of the class action group as a whole.

"ASIC's appeal raises the question whether this settlement was
unfair to the 70% of class action members who did not, or were
unable to, contribute to the funding of the action," Mr. Kell said
in a statement on May 24.

The Federal Court settlement on May 3 followed a class action
brought against Macquarie Bank by Sydney law firm Levitt Robinson.

The court settlement sees Macquarie Bank pay AU$82.5 million,
inclusive of legal and administrative costs, in final settlement
of the claims of 1050 Storm clients who took out margin loans with
the bank.  Under the settlement, 315 investors who funded the
class action will be reimbursed legal costs and also compensated
for 42% of their losses, as estimated by Levitt Robinson.

Under the settlement, 735 Macquarie borrowers will only get back
about 18% of their losses, as estimated by Levitt Robinson.

During proceedings in the Federal Court on May 2 for approval of
the settlement, ASIC intervened to express concerns about matters
affecting the fairness of the deal.

The corporate watchdog is continuing separate actions against
Storm, including its proceeding brought in part on behalf of two
former Storm investors against Macquarie Bank, Bank of Queensland
and Senrac Pty Ltd.

ASIC is alleging unconscionable conduct in connection with their
dealings with Storm investors.

That trial was scheduled to start June 3.

ASIC has also alleged that Macquarie Bank, along with Bank of
Queensland, was knowingly concerned in the conduct by Storm of an
illegally managed investment scheme.

Judgment in this case has been reserved.


MAIN STREET: FDA Finds Bacteria & Fungus in Recalled Drug Vials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal health officials say they have found bacteria and fungus
in drug vials from a Tennessee specialty pharmacy that recalled
all of its injectable medicines last month.

The Food and Drug Administration said in an online posting on
June 7 that it identified the growths in two unopened vials of a
steroid injection distributed by the Main Street Family Pharmacy,
a compounding pharmacy in Newbern, Tenn.  The agency said it is
working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
identify the exact species of fungus and bacteria.

State and federal officials began investigating the pharmacy last
month after seven patients in North Carolina and Illinois reported
skin abscesses after being injected with methylprednisolone
acetate, a steroid used to treat inflammation, joint pain and
respiratory issues.

The same steroid was involved in a deadly fungal meningitis
outbreak last year that has killed 58 people and sickened more
than 740 others.

The FDA said it is not aware of any cases of meningitis associated
with Main Street Family Pharmacy's products.

Last month the pharmacy recalled its entire stock of sterile
products manufactured after Dec. 6, 2012.

A spokesman for the Main Street Family Pharmacy said its owners
are aware of the FDA's findings.

"In addition to the recall, our efforts have also included
comprehensive, aggressive outreach to everyone who could be
affected.  We continue to fully cooperate with state boards of
health and pharmacies, the FDA and CDC to protect patients and
resolve any lingering concerns," said spokesman Joe Grillo, in a
statement.

The company's steroid was shipped to medical facilities in 13
states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky,
Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The Main Street Family Pharmacy's license was placed on three-year
probation in March and its owners were fined $25,600 after a pair
of inspections found various problems at the facility.

According to a consent order, the 2011 inspection found out-of-
date medications on the pharmacy's shelves that were being used in
drug manufacturing.  It also found a technician who had been
working without proper registration for more than four years.
When inspectors returned in November 2012 they found 109 out-of-
date or deteriorated medications on the shelves, as well as other
problems.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Arpaio Ordered to Halt Race Profiling
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Gaynor and David Schwartz, writing for Reuters, report that
Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of
Latino drivers in his crackdown on illegal immigration, a federal
judge found on May 24, and ordered him to stop using race as a
factor in law enforcement decisions.

The ruling against the Maricopa County sheriff came in response to
a class-action lawsuit brought by Hispanic drivers that tested
whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially
profiling U.S. citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.

U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that the sheriff's
policies violated the drivers' constitutional rights and ordered
Sheriff Arpaio's office to cease using race or ancestry as a
grounds to stop, detain or hold occupants of vehicles -- some of
them in crime sweeps dubbed "saturation patrols."

"The great weight of the evidence is that all types of saturation
patrols at issue in this case incorporated race as a consideration
into their operations," Judge Snow said in a written ruling.

He added that race had factored into which vehicles the deputies
decided to stop, and into who they decided to investigate for
immigration violations.

The lawsuit contended that Sheriff Arpaio, who styles himself
"America's toughest sheriff," and his officers violated the
constitutional rights of both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants
alike in their zeal to crack down on people they believe to be in
the country illegally.

The ruling came days after a U.S. Senate panel approved a landmark
comprehensive immigration legislation that would usher in the
biggest changes in immigration policy in a generation if passed by
Congress.

The bill would put 11 million immigrants without legal status on a
13-year path to citizenship while further strengthening security
along the porous southwestern border with Mexico.

Sheriff Arpaio declined to comment on the ruling.  An attorney
representing the sheriff's office said his clients were "deeply
disappointed by the ruling" and would lodge an appeal.

"The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has always held the position
that they never have used race and never will use race in making a
law enforcement decision," attorney Tim Casey told Reuters.

"We do disagree with the findings and my clients do intend to
appeal, but at the same time . . . we will work with the court and
with the opposing counsel to comply fully with the letter and the
spirit of this order," he added.

                'Illegal and Plain Un-American'

Cecillia Wang, director of the American Civil Liberties Union
Immigrants' Rights Project and plaintiffs' counsel, called the
judge's ruling "an important victory that will resound far beyond
Maricopa County."

"Singling people out for traffic stops and detentions simply
because they're Latino is illegal and just plain un-American,"
Wang said after the ruling was made public.

"Let this be a warning to anyone who hides behind a badge to wage
their own private campaign against Latinos or immigrants that
there is no exception in the Constitution for violating people's
rights in immigration enforcement."

During testimony in the non-jury trial last year, Sheriff Arpaio
said he was against racial profiling and denied his office
arrested people because of the color of their skin.

The sheriff, who won re-election to a sixth term in November, has
been a lightning rod for controversy over his aggressive
enforcement of immigration laws in the state, which borders
Mexico, as well as an investigation into the validity of President
Barack Obama's U.S. birth certificate.

The lawsuit was brought against Sheriff Arpaio and his office on
behalf of five Hispanic drivers who said they had been stopped by
deputies because of their ethnicity.

The plaintiffs, which include the Somos America immigrants' rights
coalition and all Latino drivers stopped by the sheriff's office
since 2007, were seeking corrective action but not monetary
damages.

Sheriff Arpaio has been the subject of other probes and lawsuits.
In August, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona said it had
closed a criminal investigation into accusations of financial
misconduct by Sheriff Arpaio, and it declined to bring charges.

A separate U.S. Justice Department investigation and lawsuit
relating to accusations of civil rights abuses by Sheriff Arpaio's
office is ongoing.

Arizona has been at the heart of a bitter national debate over
immigration since Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed a 2010
crackdown on illegal immigration.

The federal government challenged the crackdown in court and said
the U.S. Constitution gives it sole authority over immigration
policy.  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has allowed to stand the
part of the law permitting police to question people they stop
about their immigration status.

Judge Snow scheduled a hearing in the case for June 14 at 9:30
a.m. at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse in
Phoenix.


MARK CIAVARELLA: Judge Combines Suits in "Kids for Cash" Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
RT USA reports that a new ruling may finally push forward long-
languishing civil lawsuits against a pair of former judges in
Pennsylvania, who plaintiffs allege made millions by sending
children to profit-making detention centers on minor charges.

On May 21, a federal judge combined several lawsuits filed against
the former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan,
into a unified class-action case in what has come to be known as
the "kids for cash" scandal.

The extensive list of plaintiffs -- over 4,000 -- were found to
involve a common enough set of facts and legal questions to
combine them into one suit, which means that after four years with
little progress plaintiffs may finally see their day in court.

The cases have been brought forward by hundreds of parents and
children who claim that they were victimized by the two former
judges as part of a kickback scheme.  Judges Ciavarella and
Conahan pleaded guilty in court to making $2.6 million in exchange
for sending juveniles to privately run detention centers, PA Child
Care and Western PA Child Care, between 2003 and 2008.

Judge Ciavarella sentenced children to extended stays in private
juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal
via a social media website, trespassing into a vacant building and
shoplifting DVDs from Wal-mart.

According to Courthouse News, lead plaintiff Florence Wallace
alleges that her 14-year-old daughter was taken directly from
Judge Ciavarella's courtroom in shackles during a case involving
threats on MySpace, and sent to the PA Child Care camp.

Plaintiffs have also gone after attorney Robert Powell, former
co-owner of PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care, and Robert
Mericle, owner of a construction firm which built the children's
prisons as part of another class action lawsuit.

Parents involved in the suit claim that, on top of the wrongful
imprisonment of their children, their wages and Social Security
benefits were seized in order to pay for the privately run
centers.  In one case, Edward Kenzakoski committed suicide
following a jail sentence handed out by Judge Ciavarella, despite
his first-time offender status.

Judge Ciavarella was sentenced to 28 years behind bars following
his conviction on 12 counts, including racketeering, and is
currently being held at a minimum-medium security facility in
Illinois.

Judge Conahan was sentenced to 17-and-a-half years, a reduced
sentence resulting from his pleading guilty to one count of
racketeering conspiracy.  He is being held at a facility in
Florida and is scheduled for release in 2026.

Amidst the unfolding number of cases, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court authorized a rarely appointed "special master" to review,
and possibly expunge the detained children's records.

Illustrating the number of juveniles involved in the vast kickback
scheme, some 2,421 children had adjudications dismissed by the
state Supreme Court by 2010.


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Allows Women Inmates' Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Barry, writing for The Republican, reports that a
federal judge ruled that a case alleging male correctional
officers at the women's prison in Chicopee routinely videotaped
naked female inmates during strip searches may proceed as a class
action lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that since the Western Massachusetts
Regional Women's Correctional Center opened in 2007, the jail has
had a policy of allowing male officers to videotape strip searches
of female prisoners in non-emergency situations.

The complaint argues the policy is degrading and unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor has certified a class of
approximately 178 women who have been videotaped by a male
officer.  Any woman who was held at the women's correctional
center and was videotaped by a male officer during a strip search
since September 15, 2008, is a member of the class.

The lawsuit was filed in September 2011 by former WCC inmate Debra
Baggett against Hampden County Sheriff Michael J. Ashe, Jr. and
Assistant Superintendent Patricia Murphy, who runs the women's
correctional center.  It alleges that from Sept. 15, 2008, to May
20, 2010, males held the camera for 71% of the videotaped strip
searches.

Mr. Ashe has evaluated and modified the policy in the wake of the
lawsuit, attorneys for both sides have said.  The frequency by
which males videotape the strip searches have plummeted to 2% of
the time, the complaint states.

                           *     *     *

Matt Caron, writing for WWLP, reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of 178 women inmates at the women's jail
in Chicopee; alleging that inmates were forced to undergo strip
searches that were being filmed by male correctional officers.

The suit was originally filed in September 2011 by Debra Baggett,
a former inmate at the Western Mass Regional Women's Correctional
Center.

According to Boston Civil Rights attorney Howard Friedman, between
2008 and 2010, men held the camera for 71% of the videotaped strip
searches.  Mr. Friedman claims that percentage dropped to 2% by
2012, after prison officials became aware of the lawsuit.

22News talked to Mr. Friedman on May 23.  He said that the suit is
all about maintaining a person's dignity.

"There's no allegation that anybody was using it for their
personal use.  It's really for a woman about as humiliating and
embarrassing a procedure as could be; to be forced to undergo that
procedure while there's a man standing there holding a camera,"
Mr. Friedman said.

A court is expected to rule of the whether the policy that was
allegedly in place here at the women's correctional center was
constitutional.  That's expected to happen sometime in early 2014.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: May Face Pressure If Tebow, Manziel Join Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Rishe, writing for Forbes, reports that the possibility
that Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel to soon join the Ed O'Bannon-led
lawsuit against NCAA, EA Sports, and the Collegiate Licensing
Company for the commercial rights that student-athletes currently
do not possess over the control and use of their own likenesses
for financial gain would bring pressure to these organizations.

This lawsuit, which is currently in the judicial system but has
yet to reach trial, received renewed attention within the last few
days when it was revealed by SB Nation that the 2010 version of EA
Sports' NCAA football game had several plays within the University
of Florida's fictitious playbook referencing Mr. Tebow's name.
That version of the game was released in the summer of 2009, which
was also Mr. Tebow's final year in Gainesville.  Seemingly, this
evidence contradicts an NCAA statement released 2 months before
the game's release which stated "Our agreement with EA Sports
clearly prohibits the use of names and pictures of current
student-athletes in their electronic games.  We are confident that
no such use has occurred."

Despite the fact that Mr. Tebow may not be earning an NFL salary
playing quarterback in 2013, his endorsements are such that he
doesn't need to get involved with this lawsuit for the money.
However, we know Mr. Tebow is a principled man of faith.  As such,
getting involved in this matter might be just the sort of thing
his moral compass naturally gravitates towards.

Couple that with the financial dilemma faced by the reigning
Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel from Texas A&M, and the
defendants in this legal battle might soon be facing a dynamic duo
of Messrs. Tebow and Manziel so formidable that even the Wonder
Twins would coward in retreat.

Mr. Manziel could easily be motivated to join this battle.  Recall
from earlier this year several articles (here and here) which
detail the millions he must forego in the short-run because of his
inability to cash in on his likeness due to NCAA rules.

"Though I don't believe in paying student-athletes competitive
wages given the many perks they already receive both financial and
non-financial, I do believe that establishing escrow funds for
individual athletes generating significant royalty revenues for
their institutions (to be accessed upon departing the school) is
entirely justifiable.  If Tebow and Manziel join the cause, a
system of this type may be much closer to fruition than we
currently realize," Mr. Rishe said.

Though Ed O'Bannon's star doesn't shine as bright as it did when
his UCLA Bruins won the NCAA Men's Basketball title in 1995, he
has Hall of Famers like Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell already
in his corner as part of the class action lawsuit.

But adding cult-like heroes such as Tim Tebow and Johnny Heisman
would further bring pressure to bare upon the defendants in this
case . . . perhaps expediting an eventual legal settlement that
will forever change the economics of college athletics.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBSG Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc's parent continues to defend itself
and its subsidiaries against shareholder class action lawsuits
pending in New York, 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.

National Westminster Bank Plc ("NatWest" or "the Bank") is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("the
Royal Bank" or "the holding company"), which in turn is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBSG"
or "the ultimate holding company"), a large banking and financial
services group.  The "Group" or "NatWest Group" comprises the Bank
and its subsidiary and associated undertakings.  "RBS Group" means
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its subsidiary
undertakings, including the Bank, and the term the "Royal Bank"
refers to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

RBSG and certain of its subsidiaries, together with certain
current and former individual officers and directors were named as
defendants in purported class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York involving
holders of RBSG preferred shares (the Preferred Shares litigation)
and holders of American Depositary Receipts (the ADR claims).

In the Preferred Shares litigation, the consolidated amended
complaint alleged certain false and misleading statements and
omissions in public filings and other communications during the
period March 1, 2007, to January 19, 2009, and variously asserted
claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as amended (Securities Act).  The putative class is composed
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBSG Series Q,
R, S, T and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares issued
pursuant or traceable to the April 8, 2005, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) registration statement.  The Plaintiffs
sought unquantified damages on behalf of the putative class.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and briefing on the
motions was completed in September 2011.  On September 4, 2012,
the Court dismissed the Preferred Shares litigation with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

With respect to the ADR claims, a complaint was filed in January
2011 and a further complaint was filed in February 2011 asserting
claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the RBS Group's American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between March 1, 2007, and January 19,
2009.  On August 18, 2011, these two ADR cases were consolidated
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.  On
November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting ADR-related claims under Sections 10 and 20 of
the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in January 2012 and
briefing on the motions was completed in April 2012.  The Court
heard oral argument on the motions on July 19, 2012.  On
September 27, 2012, the Court dismissed the ADR claims with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have filed motions for reconsideration
and for leave to re-plead their case.

The RBS Group has also received notification of similar
prospective claims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no
court proceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims.
In October 2011, the RBS Group submitted a detailed response to a
letter before action from one purported plaintiff group in the
United Kingdom.

National Westminster Bank Plc -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, which
in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group plc, a large banking and financial services group.  NatWest
Group has a large and diversified customer base and provides a
wide range of products and services to personal, commercial and
large corporate and institutional customers.  NatWest is
headquartered in London, United Kingdom.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBSG Defends Suits Over $85BB MBS Issuance
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc's parent and its subsidiaries are
defending themselves against class action lawsuits related to the
issuance of more than $85 billion of mortgage-backed securities,
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.

National Westminster Bank Plc ("NatWest" or "the Bank") is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("the
Royal Bank" or "the holding company"), which in turn is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBSG"
or "the ultimate holding company"), a large banking and financial
services group.  The "Group" or "NatWest Group" comprises the Bank
and its subsidiary and associated undertakings.  "RBS Group" means
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its subsidiary
undertakings, including the Bank, and the term the "Royal Bank"
refers to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

There continues to be a high level of litigation activity in the
financial services industry focused on residential mortgage and
credit crisis related matters.  As a result, the RBS Group has
become the subject of claims for damages and other relief
regarding mortgages and related securities and expects that it may
become the subject of additional such claims in the future.

RBS Group companies have been named as defendants in their various
roles as issuer, depositor and/or underwriter in a number of
claims in the United States that relate to the securitisation and
securities underwriting businesses.  These cases include actions
by individual purchasers of securities and purported class action
lawsuits.  Together, the pending individual and class action cases
involve the issuance of more than $85 billion of mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) issued primarily from 2005 to 2007.  Although the
allegations vary by claim, in general, the plaintiffs in these
actions claim that certain disclosures made in connection with the
relevant offerings contained materially false or misleading
statements and/or omissions regarding the underwriting standards
pursuant to which the mortgage loans underlying the securities
were issued.  RBS Group companies have been named as defendants in
more than 45 lawsuits brought by purchasers of MBS, including the
purported class actions.

Among these MBS lawsuits are six cases filed on September 2, 2011,
by the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as conservator
for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).  The primary
FHFA lawsuit is pending in the federal court in Connecticut, and
it relates to approximately $32 billion of MBS for which RBS Group
entities acted as sponsor/depositor and/or lead underwriter or co-
lead underwriter.  The defendants' motion to dismiss FHFA's
amended complaint in this case is pending, but the court has
permitted discovery to commence.  The other five FHFA lawsuits
(against Ally Financial Group, Countrywide Financial Corporation,
JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Nomura) name RBS Securities Inc. as
a defendant by virtue of the fact that it was an underwriter of
some of the securities at issue.  Four of these cases are part of
a coordinated proceeding in federal court in New York in which
discovery is underway.  The fifth case (the Countrywide matter) is
pending in federal court in California, and is currently the
subject of a motion to dismiss.

Other MBS lawsuits against RBS Group companies include two cases
filed by the National Credit Union Administration Board (on behalf
of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal
Credit Union) and eight cases filed by the Federal Home Loan Banks
of Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, Seattle and San Francisco.

The purported MBS class actions in which RBS Group companies are
defendants include New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund et al. v.
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc et al.; New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al.; In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation; Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System et al. v. Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust
2006-3, et al. (the Thornburg Litigation); and Luther v.
Countrywide Financial Corp. et al. and related cases.  On
February 25, 2013, the federal district court overseeing the
Thornburg Litigation entered a final order approving a settlement
of the litigation, involving a $11.25 million payment by the
defendants.

Certain other institutional investors have threatened to bring
claims against the RBS Group in connection with various mortgage-
related offerings.  The RBS Group cannot predict whether any of
these individual investors will pursue these threatened claims (or
their outcome), but expects that several may.  If such claims are
asserted and were successful, the amounts involved may be
material.

In many of these actions, the RBS Group has or will have
contractual claims to indemnification from the issuers of the
securities (where an RBS Group company is underwriter) and/or the
underlying mortgage originator (where an RBS Group company is
issuer).  The amount and extent of any recovery on an
indemnification claim, however, is uncertain and subject to a
number of factors, including the ongoing creditworthiness of the
indemnifying party.

With respect to the current claims, the RBS Group considers that
it has substantial and credible legal and factual defences to
these claims and will continue to defend them vigorously.

National Westminster Bank Plc -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, which
in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group plc, a large banking and financial services group.  NatWest
Group has a large and diversified customer base and provides a
wide range of products and services to personal, commercial and
large corporate and institutional customers.  NatWest is
headquartered in London, United Kingdom.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBSG Defends Suits Over LIBOR
---------------------------------------------------
The RBS Group is defending a number of class action lawsuits and
individual claims relating to the setting of London Interbank
Offered Rate, according to National Westminster Bank Plc's
April 29, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

National Westminster Bank Plc ("NatWest" or "the Bank") is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("the
Royal Bank" or "the holding company"), which in turn is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBSG"
or "the ultimate holding company"), a large banking and financial
services group.  The "Group" or "NatWest Group" comprises the Bank
and its subsidiary and associated undertakings.  "RBS Group" means
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its subsidiary
undertakings, including the Bank, and the term the "Royal Bank"
refers to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

Certain members of the RBS Group have been named as defendants in
a number of class actions and individual claims filed in the U.S.
with respect to the setting of London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR).  The complaints are substantially similar and allege that
certain members of the RBS Group and other panel banks
individually and collectively violated various federal laws,
including the U.S. commodities and antitrust laws, and state
statutory and common law by manipulating LIBOR and prices of
LIBOR-based derivatives in various markets through various means.
The RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal
and factual defences to these and prospective claims.  It is
possible that further claims may be threatened or brought in the
U.S. or elsewhere relating to the setting of interest rates or
interest rate-related trading.

National Westminster Bank Plc -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, which
in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group plc, a large banking and financial services group.  NatWest
Group has a large and diversified customer base and provides a
wide range of products and services to personal, commercial and
large corporate and institutional customers.  NatWest is
headquartered in London, United Kingdom.


NVR INC: Still Defend Class Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against NVR, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages.  The lawsuits were filed as purported class
actions.  However, while a number of individuals have filed
consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action,
none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to
represent have been certified as a class, and the Company has
filed a motion to decertify the federal collective action claim
and dismiss the individuals who filed consents from the case.  The
lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and
North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in
the New York action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007.  Courts that
have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have
acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing
representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime
wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt
status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was
valid.  Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.
The Company is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


PILOT FLYING J: Faces Another Class Action Over Rebate Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
WBIR.com reports that another class action lawsuit has been filed
against Pilot Flying J.  This time the main plaintiff is a
customer in Mississippi.

As with at least half a dozen other suits, the latest one claims
Pilot hid a rebate scheme that ripped off trucking companies.

Federal investigators raided the Knoxville headquarters on
April 15, and since then a federal judge unsealed court documents
detailing the government's allegations against the nation's
largest truck stop company.

So far no charges have been filed against Pilot or its employees.


SEARS CORP: Interlocutory Appeal v. Judge's Order Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that after Congress
mandated new efficiency standards for washing machines in 2001,
manufacturers responded.  They retooled their factories to sell
new front-loading washers, which use half as much water as their
top-loading counterparts.

There's only one problem with front-loaders, which just about
anybody who owns one can tell you: They can stink.  Because they
use less water and consumers tend to shut the door when they're
not in use, front-loaders can be breeding grounds for mold and
other gunk that leave the laundry room smelling like the inside of
an old running shoe.

Where there's smell, there are class-action lawyers.  As consumer
complaints mounted, the usual shops including San Francisco's
Lieff Cabraser and Seeger Weiss of New York bombarded washer
manufacturers with lawsuits claiming the machines made to
Washington's design specifications were defective.  Several
achieved class certification, and on May 30 the Supreme Court was
set to consider whether to accept Sears vs. Butler, a smelly-
washer case that defense lawyers say could open the door for a
vast expansion of consumer class actions.

This case is unusual not only because lawyers are trying to mount
an interlocutory appeal of a judge's order, normally forbidden
until some final action has been taken.  It's also unusual because
the judge in question is Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Chicago, normally considered a staunch ally of
corporations and libertarian types.

It was Judge Posner who famously said in a 1995 decision that
certifying a class on behalf of millions of consumers could be the
equivalent of handing the plaintiffs a victory.  Defendants "may
not wish to roll these dice," Judge Posner wrote.  "They may be
under intense pressure to settle."

Imagine the distress of the defense bar, then, when Judge Posner
reversed a lower court decision denying class certification in a
suit over Sears Kenmore washers manufactured by Whirlpool.  Judge
Posner, who's becoming increasingly unpredictable in his fourth
decade on the bench, said plaintiffs should at least have a chance
at convincing the court they can assemble a lawsuit designed to
prove the single question of whether the design of the front-
loading washers was defective. (He also allowed a separate class
action over defective circuit boards to proceed.)

Timothy Bishop with Mayer Brown in Chicago represents the
defendants in this case.  He says Judge Posner substituted
established rules that require all the class members to share
similar complaints with a new, oversimplified doctrine that places
efficiency above all else.

Judge Posner has "developed some odd views on class certification
and because he's an influential judge, that makes it worse," Mr.
Bishop told me.

Whirlpool says only a tiny minority of washer owners have actually
complained about foul smells (although one internal survey put the
level with all appliances, including dishwashers, at above 30%),
and the company made a number of design changes over the years to
address the problem.  Many owners who do complain of the smell may
be failing to follow instructions to leave the door open when the
washer isn't in use, Bishop said, and the problem is worse when
people keep their machines in dank basements.

The differences among the potential plaintiffs, not to mention
differences in warranty law among the six states that would be
covered by the class action, mean common issues don't predominate
as required under the Supreme Court's 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukes
decision, defendants say.  In that case the court rejected a class
action on behalf of millions of female Wal-Mart employees, saying
the differences among them made it impossible for a single jury to
decide whether Wal-Mart had discriminated against women.

"If you just say, 'is there a defect?' that sounds like it's a
common question, but it isn't," Mr. Bishop said.

The plaintiffs in the Sears case are represented by Lieff
Cabraser, Seeger Weiss and the Complex Litigation Group in
Chicago.  They urged the court not to accept the appeal of Judge
Posner's ruling since the appeals court didn't do anything other
than instruct the lower court to reconsider its dismissal of class
certification.

They further argued that Judge Posner's reasoning was correct and
that a jury could determine whether all the washers in question
had a common design defect that made them smelly.  Whirlpool knew
enough about the problem to form a special "Biofilm team" to come
up with solutions, the plaintiffs say, and the company later
introduced a new pill called Affresh to deoderize the units.

A likely alternative is the court sends the case back for the
Seventh Circuit to reconsider in light of its Comcast v. Behrend
decision, which instructed judges to take a closer look at the
evidence plaintiffs plan to use in class actions to see whether
all the class members can really claim similar damages.  The court
accepted cert. in another Whirlpool smelly washer case, Whirlpool
v. Glazer, only to remand it back to the Sixth Circuit for another
look post-Comcast.

The Sears case clearly has defense lawyers rattled.  They've
mounted an aggressive public relations campaign to get reporters
to write about it in advance of the Supreme Court's meeting
scheduled for May 30, surprising given the obvious possibility the
court will, at best, fire it back at Posner a la the Whirlpool
case.

Mr. Bishop said the court needs to review Posner's decision
because it could open the door to many more consumer class actions
based on defects that affect only a tiny percentage of consumers.
The high court also needs to address a split among the circuits,
the majority of which generally don't allow class actions based on
theoretical damages; plaintiffs must have actually suffered a loss
due to a product defect before they can sue.  The Sixth and Ninth
Circuits allow such actions to proceed, the defendants say in
their brief, meaning the court should review "this deep and mature
conflict" that has "enormous practical consequences."

And then there's the Posner effect.  The judge is one of the
nation's most respected legal theorists, who helped turn back the
tide on class actions with his 1995 Rhone-Poulenc decision and its
reference to tumbling dice.  He chucked out Apple's high-stakes
patent suit against Motorola last year, later telling Reuters
"it's not clear that we really need patents in most industries."

He maverick, but a maverick other judges listen to.  Judge Posner
understandably declined to comment on this case.  But Mr. Bishop
said the Supreme Court should take up the opportunity to set him
right.

"We think this is a dangerous enough precedent, from an
influential judge, that the court should intervene now," he said.


SEARS CORP: Supreme Court Has Yet to Decide on Certiorari Petition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute Center for
Legal Policy, in an article for PointofLaw.com, says that coming
up on the Supreme Court class action docket: the certiorari
petition in Sears v. Butler.  In yet another class action over
alleged defects causing biofilm in washing machines, a Judge
Posner opinion took the position that the class-action mechanism
was appropriate to resolve a single issue, following the Whirlpool
v. Glazer decision PointofLaw.com criticized earlier, and which
the Supreme Court GVR'd in the wake of Comcast v. Behrend.

As the opposition to certiorari notes, the case is in a strange
procedural posture: there is no class certification order as of
yet (though the Seventh Circuit's ruling would seem to all but
dictate one on remand).  The Supreme Court has yet to grant
certiorari on a Rule 23(f) remand decision, but nothing precludes
them from doing so, and this may well be a good case to re-assert
Rule 23(b)(3) predominance standards.


SEARS CORP: High Court Must Stop Trial-Bar War on Innovation
------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore H. Frank, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute
Center for Legal Policy, in an OP/ED article for Forbes, says if
courts want to discourage innovation in America -- or to persuade
overseas companies to avoid introducing their new products here --
they could do no better than to permit the kind of suit the U.S.
Supreme Court was set to decide whether or not to review on
May 30.

The case is called Sears v. Butler.  It involves front-loading
Kenmore washing machines manufactured by Whirlpool.  Since
Whirlpool introduced the new design twelve years ago, consumers
have bought millions of them, and millions of similar machines
from other manufacturers.

Front-loading machines use less water and energy than traditional
top-loaders.  But because the rubber door gasket is on the side of
the machine instead of the top, water can collect around it; if a
user does not wipe the door clean between uses, or does not use
bleach in his most recent washes, mold can develop and give off
what Consumer Reports has called a "musty" smell.  The problem
affects less than three percent of washers.  Even with this
possible side effect, Consumer Reports has rated this class of
machines "best all around," and notes that users can prevent any
mold problems with simple precautionary cleaning.

Nevertheless, Whirlpool has been targeted in an unfairly expansive
group of class action lawsuits.  The plaintiffs allege that the
very fact that any mold reveals itself at all demonstrates the
product is defective and that every washing-machine owner is
entitled to damages, whether or not they've encountered mold.  The
claim that Whirlpool has done something wrong becomes
substantially less sympathetic when one realizes that every major
washing-machine manufacturer is facing a similar class action.
Trial lawyers are seeking to profit off of manufacturers' efforts
to produce environmentally-friendly machines.

Class actions have the benefit of allowing plaintiffs with similar
claims that would be too small to bring individually to aggregate
their grievances in a single lawsuit.  But they only work fairly
if courts ensure that the strict rules for certifying classes are
followed.  For example, the rules include a requirement that
"questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate
over any question affecting only individual members"; the danger
if this rule is not followed is that a court may, in the name of
efficiency, make it impossible for defendants to raise legitimate
defenses that affect some, but not all, of the class members.

Modern large-class litigations against big corporations rarely go
to trial.  The risk of a large judgment, combined with the expense
of defense, gives plaintiffs leverage to settle profitably.  This
is because the cases are large, not because they're meritorious.
Even if the plaintiffs' lawyers collect only a few percent of the
possible damages for the numerous class members, they can make
enormous profits of millions of dollars.  The problem is
exacerbated when courts do not scrutinize the settlements to
ensure that they are designed to benefit consumers rather than
lawyers. Given that every manufacturer is being sued, they can
pass the costs along to consumers -- which means that middle-class
consumers are paying extra for products to subsidize wealthy trial
lawyers, a de facto litigation tax.  To protect against abuse, the
Supreme Court ruled that courts must look long and hard into the
facts of the case to be sure of "predominance" before certifying a
class, not wait for trial.

But in deciding on the Butler class, 7th Circuit judge Richard
Posner, deservedly one of the most influential lower-court jurists
in the country, simply dismissed the Supreme Court's rule.  His
opinion said, "Predominance is a question of efficiency."  And he
ruled that the common issue was whether the machines were
defective, and whether any one defect was common to all twenty-one
machine models should be determined at trial, not (as the Supreme
Court wrote in Wal-Mart v. Dukes) prior to class certification.
But this is exactly backwards.

Put simply, the Supreme Court's predominance rule -- repeated in
case after case over the decades by liberal and conservative
justices alike -- recognizes that the efficiency of the class-
action mechanism cannot be used to shortchange the rights of
either plaintiffs or defendants. In the words of Professor Richard
Epstein, the procedural tail cannot wag the substantive dog.

The problem is magnified in this case, because Judge Posner's
decision anticipates that class members may be entitled to seek
damages even if they never encountered the "musty" odors that come
from failure to use the machines properly.  Suddenly a problem
that affects at most 3% of consumers is over thirty times larger
for the manufacturer.

The standards that the trial lawyers behind the suit advocate and
Judge Posner's decision adopts would dramatically increase the
risk that American manufacturers face by innovating.  New products
introduce uncertainties.  Manufacturing takes time to hit stride.
Issues like the musty-odor problem are often discovered after
products go into general use.  Turning normal problems, ordinarily
addressed through warranties and changes in product instructions,
into invitations for class action lawsuits on behalf of the
uninjured would devastate product creators of all kinds and leave
no company anywhere eager to innovate in the United States.  The
efficiency that Judge Posner seeks in litigation comes not only at
the expense of fairness to defendants, but, ironically, at the
expense of our economy's efficiency.

With a decision like Butler coming from a jurist of Richard
Posner's prestige, the Supreme Court almost has to hear the case
or give green flag to the opening the floodgates to similar class
actions.  We cannot sue our way to prosperity, the economy needs
all the help it can get, and we should not tolerate the effect of
an excessive litigation tax on our economy and the unemployment
rate.  The Supreme Court should enforce its standards and stop
this trial-bar war on innovation.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Says Data Breach Suit Belongs in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaikumar Vijayan, writing for ComputerWorld New Zealand, reports
that the St. Louis-based grocery chain Schnuck Markets has claimed
that a potential class action lawsuit filed against it in an
Illinois state court over a recent data breach really belongs in
federal court because of the case's scope and damages involved.

In a motion for removal, Schnucks noted that the damages claimed
by the plaintiff in the case easily exceeded the $5 million
threshold for a federal case.  The number of people that are
alleged to have suffered financial injury from the breach and the
fact that they are from multiple states also make the case a
federal one, the company alleged in its motion.

Schnucks owns 100 stores and 96 in-store pharmacies in a five-
stage region in the Midwest.  Earlier this year the company
disclosed a data breach that it said had exposed data on about
2.4 million credit and debit cards used by customers at 79 stores.
The company said that only card numbers and expiration dates were
exposed, not the cardholder's name, address or identifying
information.

Schnucks's disclosure prompted a lawsuit from an Illinois customer
who accused the company of negligence, and of not informing
affected individuals quickly enough of the breach.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the named plaintiff and others
similarly affected, sought actual damages from Schnucks for the
numerous hours and effort that individuals had to allegedly put
into cancelling affected cards, activating replacements and
re-establishing automatic withdrawal authorizations.  It also
accused Schnucks of willful and wanton neglect, a charge for which
punitive damages are available under Illinois law.

In its motion for removal, Schnucks claimed that the "time and
effort" claims for Illinois alone easily exceed the $5 million
threshold for federal consideration.

"Even valuing Plaintiff's and the putative class members' alleged
"time and effort" damages at the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per
hour), and interpreting "numerous hours" to equal only two (2)
hours, the potential amount in controversy is equal to
approximately $7.25 million," for a class of about 500,000
affected individuals in Illinois, Schnucks said in its motion.

In addition, the potential punitive damages involved in the case
also far exceed the $5 million requirement, the motion said in
arguing for removal of the case to the District Court.

Scott Vernick, an attorney at Fox Rothschild in Philadelphia, said
that Schnucks' effort to move the case to a federal court appears
to be a calculated gambit.

Federal courts are generally better equipped and more experienced
at handling large class-action data breach lawsuits, so Schnucks
might believe it has a fairer shot there than in a state court, he
said.

Importantly, data breach lawsuits such as the one filed against
Schnucks have also not tended to fare very well in federal courts,
he said. Often, federal courts have tended to dismiss breach
lawsuits because they have not been convinced that the alleged
victims have in fact suffered actual financial injury from a
breach, Mr. Vernick said.

The downside to Schnucks' effort to get the case to federal court
is that it is in a sense admitting that potential damages against
it could be tens of millions of dollars, he said.  Any company
that admits that it faces more than $5 million in potential
damages from a lawsuit will later have a hard time backing away
from that number if the case goes against it, he added.


SOS INTERNATIONAL: Judge Dismisses Credit Report Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a Virginia judge
dismissed a putative class action accusing government staffing
contractor SOS International Ltd. of improperly using credit
reports to screen job candidates on May 23, saying the plaintiff
was not actually denied employment on the basis of a negative
report.

U.S. District Court Judge James C. Cacheris determined that an
internal discussion by the recruiter considering whether plaintiff
Dean M. Javid could adequately resolve an outstanding mortgage
debt and considering him for a position with less rigorous
background requirements than the Defense Intelligence Agency job.


SPARK NETWORKS: To Be Defended by E-mail Publishers in Kirby Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that the publishers responsible for
distributing the e-mails at issue in the class action lawsuit
brought by Kristina Kirby, et al., have agreed to furnish a
complete defense to the Company.

On October 16, 2012, Kristina Kirby, Christopher Wagner and Jamie
Carper (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, filed a putative
class action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, alleging claims against Spark
Networks USA, LLC for violations of California Business &
Professions Code section 17529.5.  The Plaintiffs allege that
certain e-mail communications advertising Web sites of Spark
Networks USA, LLC and received by the Plaintiffs violate a
California statute prohibiting false and deceptive e-mail
communications (namely, California Business & Professions Code
section 17529.5).  The Plaintiffs generally allege that they seek
damages in excess of $25,000.  As of March 28, 2013, the e-mail
publishers responsible for distributing the e-mails at issue in
this litigation have agreed to furnish a complete defense to the
Company, through independent counsel at their own expense,
pursuant to contractual indemnification provisions.

Headquartered in Beverly Hills, California, Spark Networks USA,
LLC -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a global media business,
focused on creating iconic niche-focused brands that build and
strengthen the communities they serve.  The Company's core
properties are primarily online singles desktop and mobile Web
sites that enable adults to meet, participate in a community and
form relationships with like-minded individuals.


SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Faces Class Action Over Securities Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beggs & Lane RLLP on May 24 issued a Notice of Filing Complaint
in Larry Morris Seal v. SFPC Holding Co., LLC; Southern Fidelity
Risk Managers, LLC; and James A. Graganella

Case No.: 3:13-cv-00291-MCR-CJK

This Notice is being published to inform you of a class action
lawsuit that is now pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida under the above caption on
behalf of all those who purchased SFPC Holding Company's and
Southern Fidelity Risk Managers' membership units through the
companies' private securities offering during the period beginning
on or about August 26, 2011 and continuing through the present
date.

This case has been assigned to Chief District Judge M.C. Rodgers,
located at One North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida 32502.  If
you are a member of the described class and you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
May 24.  Any member of the purported class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges SFPC, SFRM, and James Graganella with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Florida
Securities and Investor Protection Act by, among other things,
disseminating materially false and misleading information to
potential investors about the number of membership units
previously sold and to be issued through the offering during the
Class Period and the existence of stock options.  As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff and other class
members purchased membership units of SFPC and SFRM at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and have
suffered losses and damages.  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
on behalf of all purchasers of SFPC's and SFRM's membership units
through the companies' private securities offering.

Plaintiff is represented by Beggs & Lane RLLP, who has extensive
experience in securities litigation.  If you have any questions
concerning this action or would like to join the class, please
contact us.

CONTACT: Beggs & Lane RLLP
         David L. McGee
         Telephone: 850-432-2451
         E-mail: dlm@beggslane.com


TEXAS BRINE: Offers Settlement to Residents in Sinkhole Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Stegall, writing for WAFB, reports that just two days after
a federal court approved a class-action lawsuit for people
impacted by the giant Louisiana sinkhole, the company responsible
for the salt cavern that caused the sinkhole says they're ready to
begin making settlement offers to affected residents.

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

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

According to the Associated Press, Texas Brine spokesman
Sonny Cranch says 23 settlement offers were ready and officials
were contacting those residents on May 24 and May 25.

News of settlement offers comes just days after Gov. Bobby Jindal
issued an executive order to review the company's permits with the
possibility of revocation -- because of the company's slow
response to residents seeking buyouts.

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

On May 24, Texas Brine released a statement saying "We will move
forward with the effort to reach settlements with members of the
Bayou Corne community affected by the sinkhole," said Bruce
Martin, Texas Brine's vice president of operations.

"We understand the frustration of the community and appreciate
their patience as we worked through the unexpected delays in this
process," said Mr. Martin.

"While not every resident has chosen to participate in the
settlement process, Texas Brine is committed to offering fair and
reasonable settlement offers to those who may wish to move," said
Mr. Martin.

"Offers will begin with residents who have expressed an interest
in settlements and have completed the inspection and appraisal
process." said Mr. Martin.

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

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

The sinkhole grew by three acres in April, bringing its total size
to about 15 acres.

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

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


TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING: Settles Action Over Wellesley Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fiorito, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a settlement
has been reached in the class action lawsuit launched after a
disastrous fire at Toronto's biggest community housing highrise.

Brian Shell is going to see a judge.  Mr. Shell is a lawyer.
On May 24, Mr. Shell was set to present the details of a
settlement in the class-action suit launched after the fire at
200 Wellesley.

The fire began on Sept. 24, 2010 in this city's biggest community
housing highrise.  It was an unmitigated disaster.  Many people
were displaced for a very long time, and much damage was done; it
was profoundly upsetting and extremely costly. The results are
still felt in that community.

As a result of the fire, a class-action lawsuit was launched in
the name of Joanne Blair; the class has 591 members who lived in
333 units.

Mr. Shell revealed some of the details of the settlement to
roughly 100 people at a previous meeting.

The key amount?

C$6.9 million.

If the judge approves the settlement, it is expected that C$4.85
million of that amount will go to tenants; the remainder will
cover legal costs, disbursements and the exceptional work done by
National Fire Adjustment, which was instrumental in calculating
the losses incurred by the tenants.

The settlement does not include any admission of guilt on the part
of the landlord, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, or the
property management company, Greenwin.

Class members will be compensated in a variety of ways: the
displaced with get a flat amount of C$20 a day for every day they
were out of their homes; those who were injured will be
compensated accordingly; those who lost property, ditto; those who
suffered psychiatric or psychological problems will get
compensated for their suffering; those who suffered extreme
psychiatric problems will get more; and those who are still
suffering will get even more.

Mr. Shell said to the assembled, "Some may get more than C$25,000;
some will get much less; but everyone will get more than what TCHC
offered."

Mr. Shell said, "I won't tell you how much you're going to get
because the amount has to be approved; if the judge thinks it is
too low, he doesn't have to approve the settlement."  If the judge
does not approve it, for whatever reason, then the case will go to
trial.  But I don't see why it would not be approved.

There will be a public hearing on June 18.  If all goes well, and
if the judge agrees, the money should be distributed sometime this
fall.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Recalls Hepatitis A-Linked Frozen Berry Mix
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that an Oregon company is recalling a frozen berry mix sold to
Costco and Harris Teeter stores after the product has been linked
to at least 49 hepatitis A illnesses in seven states.

The Food and Drug Administration said on June 4 that Townsend
Farms of Fairview, Ore., is recalling its frozen Organic
Antioxidant Blend, packaged under the Townsend Farms label at
Costco and under the Harris Teeter brand at those stores.

Also on June 4, the federal Centers for Disease Control said the
illness count has risen from 34 to 49 people.  Illnesses were
reported in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California,
and CDC said that there are additional illnesses reported in
Hawaii and Utah.  The Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment said 12 of the cases are in that state.

The recall came three days after the FDA and the CDC first
announced a suspected link between the berries and the illnesses.
The agency did not say why there was not an immediate recall.

Costco has stores across the country, while Harris Teeter stores
are in eight East Coast states and the District of Columbia.  Both
grocery chains said they have pulled the product from store
shelves.

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease that can last from a few
weeks to a several months.  People often contract it when an
infected food handler prepares food without appropriate hand
hygiene.  The CDC said that food already contaminated with the
virus can also cause outbreaks, as is suspected in this case.

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

Bill Gaar, a lawyer for Townsend Farms, said that the frozen
organic blend bag includes pomegranate seeds from Turkey. The
seeds are only used in the product associated with the outbreak
and no other Townsend Farms products, he said.

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

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

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

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


TOWNSEND FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Frozen Berry Mix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that an Oregon farm was
hit on June 3 with two lawsuits in connection with a frozen berry
mix linked to an outbreak of hepatitis A that has infected at
least 30 people.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention said on May 31 they were investigating a
multistate outbreak of hepatitis A that was potentially associated
with Townsend Farms' Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend, a frozen blend of
berries containing pomegranate seeds.  The blend was sold at
Costco stores between February and May.

Hepatitis A, a contagious liver disease, can range in severity
from a mild illness lasting a few weeks to liver failure or death
in the most serious cases.

On June 3, a lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles state court by Lynda
Brackenridge against Townsend Farms and Costco.  Ms. Brackenridge,
a California resident, said she consumed the berry mix and, on
May 22, began experiencing fatigue, chills, muscle aches and other
symptoms.  Her condition grew worse and, on June 1, she was told
she had contracted hepatitis A.

Ms. Brackenridge remains hospitalized in isolation, the complaint
said.  She is seeking an unspecified amount of damages from both
companies for claims including negligence and breach of implied
warranties.

Also on June 3, a class action was filed by the law firm Marler
Clark in California Superior Court in Orange County against
Townsend Farms.  The lawsuit was brought on behalf of individuals
who consumed the mix, or were exposed to those who did, and had to
receive a hepatitis A vaccination or a dose of immune globulin,
which can help prevent infection in exposed individuals.

While it was unclear how many people used the product before
Costco took it off the shelves, the complaint estimates the
putative class could include more than 10,000 individuals.

Bill Marler, who is representing the putative class, said he was
preparing to file a separate lawsuit in California state court on
June 4 on behalf of Christine Favero, a resident of San Diego
County who became infected with hepatitis A after consuming the
berry mix.

Costco has removed the product from its shelves and notified
members who purchased it about potential exposure to hepatitis A.
The CDC has recommended that consumers discard it immediately.

Costco and Townsend Farms could not be immediately reached for
comment.


UNITED STATES: Lead Counsel in Pigford Suit Hires Lobbying Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Tau, writing for POLITICO.com, reports that the law firm
representing black farmers in a major discrimination case against
the U.S. government has brought on some K Street help.

The lead counsel in the landmark class action suit has hired
Crowell & Moring and Stinson Morrison Hecker on lobbying
contracts.  According to public records, both will lobby on the
"status of the settlement" in the case that pitted black farmers
alleging systemic discrimination against the Agriculture
Department.

The class action suit has come under fire from conservative
activists and government watchdogs who say that it has become a
magnet for fraud and abuse by tens of thousands of farmers who
never claimed any discrimination in court.

Both lobbying firms, as well as the lead attorney for the
settlement, did not return POLITICO's request for comment.

A New York Times story in April alleged that the White House
pushed the Justice Department and USDA to expand the scope of the
settlement well beyond the small group of farmers who alleged
discrimination in the original suit.

More than 90,000 claims have already been filed and Congress has
set aside $1.33 billion to pay out claims of racial, gender and
ethnic discrimination by the USDA.

The case -- often called the Pigford settlement -- came about when
two separate class action suits were filed in the late 1990s.  The
suits claimed that the USDA systematically discriminated against
black farmers on the basis of race.  The claims were settled by
the Clinton administration in 1999.

Since the settlement, Congress has struggled with how to deal with
the influx of claims of discrimination under the terms of the
settlement.  In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a bill that
provided for $100 million in settlement claims.  That compensation
pool was expanded under Obama with a 2010 bill.

John W. Boyd, founder and president of the National Black Farmers
Association and a longtime leading advocate on the issue, said
he's concerned about why K Street help is needed years after
judges and successive administrations have been working to resolve
the issue.

"Three years after I've worked so hard to get the settlement done,
why would someone be registering now as a lobbyist for the
settlement?" Mr. Boyd asked, saying that the class settlement did
not contact his association.  NBFA represents more than 80,000 of
the farmers alleging discrimination.

Mr. Boyd, who himself is still a soybean, corn and wheat farmer
from Baskerville, Va., has spent the past 13 years lobbying
Congress on the settlement issue.

He blasted The New York Times piece -- and conservative rhetoric
about the settlement.

"They bullied black farmers knowing that we didn't have the
resources to fight back and tell our story," he said about the
Times story.  "There was no runaway train for fraud -- they never
proved that in the story."


VISA INC: Several Retailers File New Suit Over Card Swipe Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Smythe, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Target
Corp. and Macy's Inc. joined with 15 other retailers in suing Visa
Inc. and MasterCard Inc. over credit-card and debit-card fees
after dropping out of a multibillion-dollar settlement of a
similar case.

The biggest U.S. payment card firms illegally restrained
competition for interchange fees by setting default rates and
imposing almost identical rules for accepting cards, the retailers
said in a federal court complaint in New York.

In the previous antitrust suit pending in Brooklyn federal court,
dozens of large retailers including Target and Macy's opposed a
$7.25 billion proposed settlement, alleging it gave Visa and
MasterCard too much freedom to raise rates in the future.

"Plaintiffs have paid and continue to pay significantly higher
costs to accept Visa-branded and MasterCard-branded credit and
debit cards than they would if the banks issuing such cards
competed for merchant acceptance," lawyers for the retailers said
in the May 23 complaint.

Visa, based in Foster City, California, and MasterCard, based in
Purchase, New York, are former joint ventures of major banks that
now act as agents of financial institutions that retain some
ownership of the card companies, the retailers alleged.

                       Plaintiff Companies

Besides Target and Macy's, the retailers that sued on May 23 are
TJX Cos. Inc., Kohl's Corp., Staples Inc., J.C. Penney Co. Inc.,
Office Depot Inc., L Brands Inc., Office Max Inc., Big Lots Stores
Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Ascena Retail Group Inc., Saks
Inc., Bon-Ton Stores Inc., Chico's FAS Inc., Luxottica Group SPA
(LUX) and American Signature Inc.

A separate group of retailers opposing the settlement, including
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp., announced May 21
they would opt out and might file their own lawsuits.

The settlement in Brooklyn, estimated to be the largest-ever U.S.
antitrust accord, was intended to cover more than 7 million
retailers nationwide.  Several retail trade associations also
opposed the accord and encouraged other merchants to do the same.

The settlement received tentative approval from U.S. District
Judge John Gleeson in November.  A hearing on final approval is
set for Sept. 12.

A spokeswoman for the Electronic Payments Coalition, which
represents Visa, MasterCard and banks and credit unions that issue
payment cards, said "no one is surprised" by the retailers' new
lawsuit.

                         'Old Arguments'

"They were saying they were going to do this for nearly a year
now," Trish Wexler, the spokeswoman, said in a phone interview.
"I find it hard to understand why they think they could do any
better with a new lawsuit using the same old arguments that
they've already exhausted over the course of this litigation."

The coalition is confident that the settlement will receive final
approval, she said.

A MasterCard spokesman, James Issokson, said in an e-mail that the
firm is also confident that Gleeson will sign off on the deal.
Paul Cohen, a Visa spokesman, declined to comment immediately.

K. Craig Wildfang, a lead lawyer for plaintiffs in the settlement,
said the new suit probably won't have a significant impact on
approval.  The credit card companies and other defendants might
ask to have the new suit transferred to Gleeson in Brooklyn, he
said.

The new case is Target Corp. v. Visa Inc. (V), 1:13-cv-03477, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).  The
previous case is In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-md-01720, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

According to Forbes' Daniel Fisher, "The problem with this
settlement is it is a classic case of what I call selling
absolution."  Class-action lawyers including Robbins Geller,
Berger & Montague and Robins Kaplan filed the lawsuit in 2005 on
behalf of 19 trade associations and smaller retail chains,
accusing Visa and MasterCard of using their 70% control of the
credit-card market to charge excessive processing fees.  As is
typical with these firms, they worked out a settlement last July
that would pay retailers $6 billion in cash and offer them $1.2
billion in reduced interchange fees for eight months after the
deal is signed.  The lawyers are seeking 11% of the total, or some
$800 million in fees.

The objecting retailers say the settlement would actually make
things worse.  Buried in the settlement are releases in which
every retailer that doesn't opt out agrees never to sue the
credit-card companies again with similar claims.  The settlement
doesn't force Visa and Mastercard to change the policies that
allow them to dictate interchange fees to retailers, however,
which is what drives so many of them nuts.

According to Forbes, Visa and Mastercard would drop their
prohibition against retailers assessing a surcharge for credit-
card purchases, but that is meaningless.  Retailers can already
discount for cash, and it would be a clueless consumer indeed who
couldn't see that a 5% discount for cash is the exact equivalent
of a surcharge for using credit.

Retailers complain that the credit card companies are picking
their pockets to the tune of $40 billion a year and passionately,
desperately want that money back.  They also use clever terms like
"swipe fee" to try and convince consumers that they are paying
these fees every time they buy with plastic, Forbes notes.

But retailers get a huge benefit from the ubiquitous credit-card
network and the easy availability of credit that allows consumers
to make impulse purchases they may or may not be able to afford.
It is also naive to assume that retailers would be able to keep
any reductions in interchange fees they may get out of this
litigation, Forbes says.  Retail is a fiercely competitive
business and the savings would be passed through to consumers
while the credit card companies cut back on perks like free
airline miles.

Retailers were faced with a tough choice when their ostensible
lawyers negotiated this deal.  If they remained in the class,
they'd agree to release Visa and Mastercard from any future
litigation. If they opted out, they'd give up their share of the
$7.25 billion.

It looks like a critical mass has decided to give up the $7
billion and try their luck on their own.  The question is whether
Judge Gleeson will pull the plug on what's left of this settlement
that rewards the lawyers who negotiated it so richly, according to
Forbes.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         May 28 Swipe-Fee Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set

Convenience Store News reports that retailers still undecided
about the $7.25-billion swipe fee settlement on the table were
given until May 28 to make a decision.

The settlement would end an eight-year legal battle between
retailers and Visa, MasterCard and other financial institutions
over credit card interchange fees.  The proposed accord between
the two sides in the 2005 class-action lawsuit was reached in
July.

Approximately 8 million merchants had until May 28 to opt out or
object to the deal.  Every business of any kind that has accepted
a Visa or MasterCard credit or debit card for payment since
Jan. 1, 2004 is a member of the class of plaintiffs in this
antitrust case.

A fairness hearing to determine whether the settlement should be
granted final approval is scheduled for Sept. 12, as CSNews Online
previously reported.

Several major retailers -- including 7-Eleven Inc., Alon Brands
Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Starbucks Corp. -- have opted out.
Multiple trade associations -- such as NACS, the Association for
Convenience & Fuel Retailing and the National Retail Federation --
have also chosen to opt out.

According to NACS, the association is opting out and objecting to
the proposed settlement because it does not modify the price-
fixing and other anti-competitive activities of the credit card
companies and their card-issuing banks.

"While retailers might get a couple of months' worth of their fees
back through the settlement, their swipe fees would likely
increase by more than the dollars they would receive before they
even receive a single penny from the settlement fund," NACS
stated.  "Worse, the proposed settlement requires class members to
release Visa and MasterCard from liability, forever, for any anti-
competitive rules currently in place (including the interchange or
swipe fee rules) and/or any 'substantially similar rules'
instituted at any time in the future."

The case is currently before U.S. District Court Judge John
Gleeson presiding in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn,
N.Y.  In November, Judge Gleeson granted preliminary approval to
the deal.  However, many retailers and industry associations --
including some involved in the original legal action as class
plaintiffs, as well as some who aren't -- have been raising
objections since last summer.

NACS was among the first to voice its concerns.  The association's
board of directors, comprised of more than two dozen retailers,
unanimously rejected the proposed settlement agreement because it
does not introduce competition and transparency into the credit
card interchange fee market.

NACS also joined with several other organizations to appeal
Gleeson's ruling granting preliminary approval.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in January that an appeal
should wait until objections to the settlement are filed and heard
in September.

For more information on the settlement, go to
http://www.paymentcardsettlement.com/


VODAFONE: Litigation Fund Refuses to Disclose Sign-Up Numbers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Taylor, writing for ZDNet, reports that the litigation funder
looking at launching a class-action suit against Vodafone over its
2010 and 2011 network issues, LCM, would stop looking for ex-
Vodafone customers at the end of May.  However, the group has
refused to disclose the number of people who have signed up.

Law firm Piper Alderman kicked off its plan to sue the telco back
in 2010, at the peak of the "Vodafail" complaints about the
network's poor performance.  At that time, it signed up 23,000
interested customers who were looking at getting compensation for
their network woes.  But it took two years for the campaign to
resurface, and it returned in February 2013, when Piper Alderman
received the backing of litigation funder LCM.

The firm said at the time that it was looking for tens of millions
of dollars in compensation from the telco for customers who had
suffered due to Vodafone's network issues, but it needed those
23,000 customers to re-sign up and confirm that they had a valid
case against the company before the class-action suit could go
ahead.

At the time, the firm indicated that it wanted to capture all of
the 700,000 customers who had left Vodafone since 2011.  On
May 24, that figure stands at over 1 million.

But despite a continuing exodus of customers from Vodafone, there
were signs that Piper Alderman would struggle to meet the targeted
number of customers required for its suit by the end of
registration on Friday, May 31.

LCM in May launched a series of advertisements both in print and
on radio, calling for ex-Vodafone customers to sign up to the
class action.  Austereo, Australian Radio Network, and Nova have
pulled the commercials, but conservative talkback station 2GB is
believed to still be airing them.

LCM has claimed that it is being censored, a claim that Vodafone
has denied.

Despite repeated requests to LCM to confirm the number of
customers that have so far signed up, the firm has refused to
disclose the number of disgruntled customers who have returned to
be part of the suit in the two years since their original
complaints about the telco.

According to a spokesperson for LCM, the firm would not disclose
the number of customers involved in the class action until after
the sign-up deadline has passed.

In a statement, Vodafone said it would not be distracted by Piper
Alderman's efforts to get a class-action suit up and running.

"Vodafone has invested heavily in its network, and is a very
different business today.  We are focused on continued
improvements in customer experience, and will not be distracted by
what has been called a 'lawyers' picnic' by Australia's leading
consumer advocate," a Vodafone spokesperson said.

"If there is a customer who is unhappy with their service, we want
to hear from them direct."


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Dismisses Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Li, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that just a
couple of months ago it was starting to look like the inexorable
passage of time was the greatest threat to the follow-on gender
bias class actions filed against Wal-Mart in the wake of the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  Judges in Tennessee
and Dallas both threw out baby Dukes lawsuits pending in those
states, agreeing with Wal-Mart and its lawyers at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher that the plaintiffs had run out of time to sue.

On May 24, the plaintiffs in a different regional Dukes spinoff
managed to beat Wal-Mart on the time limits issue -- but they
still couldn't survive the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dukes
case itself.  U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison, Wis.,
dismissed class allegations filed by a group of five female Wal-
Mart workers, ruling that they couldn't show that their
discrimination claims had enough in common to qualify for class
treatment.  The employees, who are represented by Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll and Nichols Kaster, had been members of the
nationwide class led by Betty Dukes that the Supreme Court
decertified in June 2011.

"Although I conclude that the statute of limitations does not bar
the claims of the proposed class members, I am granting
defendant's motion to dismiss because plaintiffs have failed to
identify any common questions of law or fact," Judge Crabb ruled
on May 24.  "In particular, they have not shown how the class they
propose solves any of the problems the Court found in Dukes."

In a 23-page opinion, Judge Crabb found that the employees were
simply recasting most of their arguments from the original Dukes
case, and that they'd provided little new evidence to demonstrate
that they were systematically discriminated against because of
their gender.  Judge Crabb didn't buy the employees' argument that
they had refined their arguments by limiting their focus to one
particular region rather than the entire country.  The judge noted
that the Supreme Court said nothing about the size of the
nationwide class, only that it lacked commonality.

"By limiting the class geographically, plaintiffs simply have
created a smaller version of the same problem," wrote Judge Crabb.

Wal-Mart had argued in its motion to dismiss that American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court's 1974 decision
allowing class action litigation to toll the statute of
limitations, only applied to subsequent individual claims and not
class claims.  Judge Crabb rejected that argument, finding that
American Pipe had to apply to both sets of claims, otherwise
plaintiffs would file multiple lawsuits in order to protect
themselves, thereby clogging up the courts.

Barring successful appeals, Judge Crabb's ruling leaves Wal-Mart
facing just two Dukes-progeny cases around the country. In
September, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco
refused to dismiss the scaled-down remnant of the original Dukes
class action, though he indicated that the plaintiffs still faced
a high hurdle at the class certification stage.  Another purported
class action remains pending in U.S. district court in Florida.

Wal-Mart lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn said he could
live with Judge Crabb's ruling on American Pipe tolling given her
decision to toss the case anyway.  "We believe we are correct as
to the statute of limitations issue," said Mr. Boutrous.  "But we
were very pleased the court looked at the commonality issue."
Mr. Boutrous added that on May 24 he intends to file Wal-Mart's
opposition to a pending class certification motion in the San
Francisco case, as well as his side's own evidentiary submissions.

Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein told us he was still mulling his
appellate options after Judge Crabb's ruling.  "Without the
ability to proceed on a class basis, most of these women would
have no ability to pursue remedies," said Mr. Sellers.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hughes, writing for NWAonline, reports that a lawsuit seeking
class-action status against the Whirlpool Corp. for property
damages from a spilled hazardous chemical is one of three civil
suits recently filed against the corporation in Sebastian County
Circuit Court.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Denies Liability Alleged in Gardner Action
----------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries Inc. filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 29, 2013, a Form 8-K to update certain
information in the supplemental disclosures to the definitive
proxy statement on Schedule 14A, which was filed by WMS on
April 9, 2013.

The Company also responded to certain allegations made by the
plaintiffs in certain stockholder litigation relating to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 30, 2013, by and
among WMS, Scientific Games Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("Scientific Games"), SG California Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Scientific Games, and Scientific Games
International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Scientific
Games.

Seven putative class action lawsuits challenging the merger have
been filed in various jurisdictions, including, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Gardner v. WMS
Industries, Scientific Games Corp., et al., No. 2013 CH 3540 (Ill.
Cir., Cook County) (the "Gardner Action").  The Plaintiffs in the
Gardner Action and the three other actions filed in Illinois moved
for and obtained consolidation of all the Illinois cases into the
Gardner Action.  On April 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner
Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the merger, scheduled on May 10, 2013.  On
April 19, 2013, the plaintiffs in all other actions agreed to a
stay pending resolution of the Gardner Action.  On April 26, 2013,
lead counsel in the Gardner Action, on behalf of counsel for all
plaintiffs in all actions, agreed with counsel for all defendants
in the Gardner Action to withdraw their motion for preliminary
injunction and not to seek to enjoin the stockholder vote in
return for the agreement by WMS to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the merger.  The agreement with lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gardner Action will not affect
the amount of merger consideration that the Company's stockholders
are entitled to receive in the merger or any other terms of the
Merger Agreement as described in the Definitive Proxy Statement.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the Gardner Action and specifically deny that
any breach of fiduciary duty occurred, or that any further
disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive Proxy
Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
However, to minimize the expense of defending the Gardner Action
and to provide additional information to WMS stockholders at a
time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the special
meeting, the defendants have agreed to provide the supplemental
disclosures.  The Company says there can be no assurance that the
merger will be consummated, that the parties to the Gardner Action
ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into
such stipulation.

As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a
special meeting was held on May 10, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., local
time, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, 11 E. Walton, Chicago,
Illinois, for the purpose of considering and voting upon, among
other things, the merger agreement with Scientific Games.  The WMS
board of directors unanimously determined that the merger
agreement and the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement, including the merger, are advisable, fair to and in the
best interests of WMS and its stockholders and recommends that the
WMS stockholders vote "FOR" the adoption of the merger agreement.

WMS Industries Inc. -- http://ir.wms.com/-- is engaged in the
design, manufacture and sale of coin-operated and home video
games, pinball and novelty games and video lottery terminals and
gaming devices.  The Company is headquartered in Waukegan,
Illinois.


YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Rulings in Securities Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc., is awaiting court decisions on the plaintiffs'
motions seeking consolidation of four actions, appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of their selection of counsel, according to
the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 23,
2013.

Beginning on January 24, 2013, four purported class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.  The complaints allege claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants on
behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities
between October 9, 2012, and January 7, 2013, inclusive (the
"class period").  The Plaintiffs allege that during the class
period, defendants purportedly made materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition, thereby inflating the prices at
which the Company's securities traded.  The complaints seek
damages in an undefined amount. On March 25, 2013, two prospective
lead plaintiffs filed motions seeking consolidation of the four
actions, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of their
selection of counsel.  In addition, on March 26, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  These motions are
currently pending before the court.  The Company denies liability
and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in these
complaints.  A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: "Castillo" Suit vs. Taco Bell Units Now Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Agustine Castillo v. Taco Bell of
America, LLC and Taco Bell Corp. is now closed, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 23,
2013.

On July 27, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Agustine
Castillo v. Taco Bell of America, LLC and Taco Bell Corp., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class
of salaried assistant general managers who were allegedly
misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours
worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a
week. The plaintiff also seeks to represent a statewide class of
salaried assistant general managers who allegedly did not receive
compensation for all hours worked. The plaintiff's counsel in this
action is the same as plaintiffs' counsel in the Whittington
lawsuit. On January 4, 2013, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss
or stay the action. On March 18, 2013, the court granted Taco
Bell's motion to dismiss as to the putative class. Thereafter, the
three individually-named plaintiffs dismissed their individual
actions, and the matter is finally closed.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Taco Bell Crew Member's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  Taco Bell is a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc.  The
plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco Bell
failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination and seeks
restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees.  This case appears to be duplicative
of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  Taco Bell
filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case to the same
district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.
The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales
case on May 28, 2010.  After the September 2011 denial of class
certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, the
court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit, which
plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.  Taco Bell filed
its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and the plaintiff has
since filed two additional amended complaints.  Taco Bell has
answered the Third Amended Complaint and commenced discovery.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 23, 2013.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in "Moeller" Class Suit Set for June 13
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been scheduled for June 13, 2013, in the class
action lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 23, 2013.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant
in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et
al. v. Taco Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 200
Company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
The Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural
and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to
the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons
Act (the "CDPA").  The Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an
injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply
with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the
District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the
Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh
Act or CDPA.  The Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking
the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under
the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member
of the class.  The Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess
of 100,000 individuals in the class.  In February 2004, the
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The class included claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

In May 2007, a hearing was held on the plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  In
August 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered the plaintiffs to
select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial.  The trial for
the exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on October 5,
2011, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ruling that the plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive
relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to
corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California.  The court declined
to order injunctive relief at the time, however, citing the
pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive
and damages class.  The court also found that twelve specific
items at the exemplar store were once out of compliance with
applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class.  On September 13, 2012, the court set a discovery and
briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual
plaintiffs' state law damages claims, which the court stated will
be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible
issuance of an injunction.  On September 17, 2012, the court
issued an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was
warranted.  The Plaintiffs appealed that order.  Briefing is
complete, and a hearing has been scheduled for June 13, 2013.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Further, Taco Bell intends to
vigorously oppose plaintiffs' appeal.  Taco Bell has taken steps
to address potential architectural and structural compliance
issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and
federal disability access laws.  The costs associated with
addressing these issues have not significantly impacted the
Company's results of operations.  The Company has provided for a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit.
However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in
losses in excess of those currently provided for in the Company's
Financial Statements.  A reasonable estimate of the amount of any
possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently
provided for in the Company's Financial Statements cannot be made
at this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Still Defends "Whittington" Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours worked in a day.  The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery, which is currently on-going.  On September 16, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The court heard
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA on
January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered
the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class
members.  Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in forms.
The court granted Taco Bell's request for written and deposition
discovery of the class.  After further discovery, Taco Bell plans
to seek decertification of the class.  The plaintiffs are no
longer pursuing their alleged Colorado state law claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 29, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 23, 2013.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this
lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not
result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in the
Company's Financial Statements.  A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that
currently provided for in the Company's Financial Statements
cannot be made at this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Still Finalizing List of Opt-ins in "Smith" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit commenced by Mark Smith
against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc., are still working to
finalize the list of class opt-ins, according to the Company's
April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 23, 2013.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but,
in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.  Pizza
Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend.  Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza
Hut's motion with respect to the plaintiffs' state law claims but
allowed the FLSA claims to go forward.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012.  The opt-in
period closed on August 23, 2012, and the parties are working to
finalize the list of opt-ins.  The final number has yet to be
determined but is expected to be approximately 6,000.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against
a consolidated wage and hour litigation in California, according
to the Company's April 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 23,
2013.

Taco Bell Corp. was named as a defendant in a number of putative
class action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.  Some plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June
2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.  The
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the
vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on
September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the
certification of the vacation and final pay claims.  The
Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest
break classes.  On January 2, 2013, the District Court rejected
three of the proposed classes but granted certification with
respect to the late meal break class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is the world's largest
quick service restaurant ("QSR") company based on number of system
units, with over 39,000 units in more than 125 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell, the Company develops, operates, franchises and
licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package
and sell a menu of competitively priced food items.  Units are
operated by a Concept or by independent franchisees or licensees
under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  The Company
was incorporated in North Carolina in 1997, and is headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.


* 24,000 People Take Part in Class Action Over Unfair Bank Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Bailey, writing for The Timaru Herald, reports that a Timaru
mother paying NZD35 a month in bank fees is one of 24,000 people
taking part in a class action against unfair bank fees.

In Canterbury alone, 2000 people have signed up for Fair Play on
Fees, in what is shaping up to be the largest group litigation in
New Zealand's history.

Timaru woman Bella, not her real name, has not had a bank fee less
than NZD35 a month for the past six years thanks to a NZD2000
overdraft she was given while studying.  "I went to the bank to
arrange an automatic payment to pay it back, so eventually I would
not have to pay the fee," she said.

"They recommended instead that I got a loan to pay it off and said
they had a few deals on loans."

She has since cancelled her automatic payments for bills as she
was often being charged NZD19 for dishonor fees.

"I've gone back to the old-fashioned way of paying bills, it was
just too much."

Fair Play on Fees lawyer Andrew Hooker said her case was not
isolated.

"This story is just one of thousands we have received as part of
our campaign against unfair bank fees."

Mr. Hooker said he was astonished at just how many unfair fee
stories clients had.

"Some are people finding it near impossible to climb out of their
financial situation because of wave after wave of default fees.

"Others are small business owners who need their bank to be
helpful rather than charging fees at every opportunity.

"Default fees cannot be a source of profit for the banks.  They
must be in line with what the cost is to facilitate the
transaction.  The millions of dollars that the banks make every
year from these fees is wrong and it's not just us who says so,
the law does too. That is what this case is about."

He said the class action would be an opportunity for Kiwis to
force banks into a position where they could not take advantage of
their customers any longer.

"Until now, banks have been sitting in a privileged position.

"Customers have had minimal opportunity to challenge the fees and
banks have open access to their accounts.  This class action will
change things."

Bank fees had dropped dramatically since similar class actions
started in Australia, he said.

The case is backed by litigation funder Litigation Lending
Services, so there is no upfront cost to participate.  "If the
case fails then clients pay nothing.

"That is how funded litigation works."  Registrations are still
being taken to participate in the claim at fairplayonfees.co.nz.


* Canadian Senator Remains Mum on Husband's Off-Shore Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that while many senators are talking about the
expense scandal, one senator from Saskatchewan has remained mum
about a separate controversy involving an off-shore trust.

Saskatchewan Senator Pana Merchant isn't answering questions from
CBC News about what, if anything, she disclosed to the Senate
ethics officer about a trust set up by her husband, prominent
class-action lawyer Tony Merchant.

Documents obtained by CBC show Pana Merchant was listed as a
beneficiary to a C$1.7 million trust set up in the Cook Islands,
an off-shore haven in the South Pacific.

The information came from a huge leak of offshore financial
information obtained by the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists.

CBC's report about the trust came out on April 3.  Under Senate
rules put in place in 2005, Pana Merchant would have been required
to confidentially declare that she was a beneficiary of the trust
to the Senate's ethics commissioner.

CBC asked Pana Merchant to talk about the trust and whether or not
she disclosed it, in confidence, to the Senate ethics officer --
but after seven weeks, she hasn't answered the questions.

Meanwhile, when Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was recently asked
if he's spoken to Merchant about the matter, he said he only
wanted to talk about the C$90,000 paid by the prime minister's
former chief of staff to Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, who has
now left the Tory caucus.

"Right now I am not talking about ethical lapse other than the
extraordinarily serious one that the prime minister of this
country committed," Mr. Trudeau said.

When asked again about Pana Merchant, Mr. Trudeau said he had not
personally spoken to her.  "I know the leadership of the Senate
has engaged with her on the issue," he said.

Liberal Senator James Cowan, who is leader of the opposition in
the Senate, says he spoke to Merchant last month.

"I told her that we have a Senate Code of Ethics that requires
disclosure of some private financial information and that of your
spouse to the extent you know it, so that she should have a
discussion with the Senate ethics officer to make sure she was
fully in compliance," Mr. Cowan said.

For its part, a spokesperon for the Senate ethics office says it
can't comment on the individual circumstances of any senator.

Senators Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb are
the four members of the red chamber facing scrutiny over expenses.


* Japan Consumer Class Action Bill Set to Go to Parliament
----------------------------------------------------------
Yuko Takeo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that as
global investors await Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's third arrow of
economic growth policies -- a package of corporate-friendly
regulatory reforms -- his government is quietly moving forward
with a measure irking the business community: a bill aimed at
encouraging more consumer class-action lawsuits.

The cabinet approved the measure in April, and aims to have it
pass parliament before the session ends in June.  Specifically,
the law would for the first time allow a class of Japanese
consumers to collect as a group monetary damages against companies
found to have taken unfair advantage of them.  "This bill, if
passed, would allow consumers to recover what they had lost,"
Atsushi Suzuki, a spokesman for the Consumer Affairs Agency told
JRT.

The new law -- slated to take effect in 2016 -- would still be
considerably weaker than the American class-action system.
According to Mr. Suzuki, the new Japanese version will only allow
claims for whatever amount consumers had paid.  Emotional or
physical damage claims, which often raise the stakes in U.S.
class-action suits, won't be allowed.

Still, it does strengthen Japan's existing class-action system,
introduced in 2007.  Under current law, a class of consumers can
seek an injunction stopping behavior considered inappropriate, but
can't receive any compensation.  The courts have handled only 29
cases under that law.

The new proposed law has drawn opposition from Keidanren, Japan's
largest business organization, which issued a statement in March
saying it "could have considerable negative impact on Prime
Minister Abe's economic revitalization program which was beginning
to show signs of acceleration."

Japan's step toward an American-style class action system
underscores a key difference between the two economies: the huge
lawyer imbalance.

The U.S. had a total of 1.2 million lawyers in 2011, compared with
30,000 in Japan.  The U.S. has 17 times more lawyers, per capita,
than Japan.  And there remains in Japan considerable skepticism
that the country needs more.

"The U.S. is telling us to increase the number of our lawyers,
when many of their lawyers are of low quality and are useless,"
Shintaro Ishihara -- a veteran nationalist politician and sometime
American provocateur -- wrote in a 2007 essay.


* Poll Says Americans Believe Supreme Court "Too Liberal"
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Keegan, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that
in recent years, the United States Supreme Court has turned
corporate treasuries into campaign slush funds for CEOs,
demolished campaign finance laws, aided and abetted pay
discrimination, made it much harder for consumers and workers to
file class action lawsuits against corporations that have cheated
them, and kindly delivered the White House to one lucky Republican
from Texas.

Study after study has found that the Supreme Court under Chief
Justice John Roberts and his predecessor William Rehnquist has
swerved hard to the right, systematically favoring corporate
interests over workers, consumers and voters -- to a shocking
extent.

So why does a plurality of Americans still think that the Supreme
Court leans to the left?

A new poll from Public Policy Polling finds that 36 percent of
Americans believe the Supreme Court is "too liberal," compared
with just 30 percent who find it "too conservative" and 29 percent
who think it's ideologically "about right."  The poll highlights a
problem that has long plagued progressives who care about the
courts: while the Supreme Court and lower federal courts continue
to drive to the right, many Americans, strangely, have come to
believe that the courts tilt to the left.

This misperception of the federal judiciary, and especially the
Supreme Court, is no fluke.  It is the residue of more than a
half-century of propaganda by the right labeling the Supreme Court
a bastion of runaway liberal judicial activists who supersede the
will of the people to impose their own views on innocent
Americans.  This campaign began with "massive resistance" to
landmark civil rights and civil liberties decisions of the Warren
Court, most notably Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which
desegregated the schools and prompted an "impeach Earl Warren"
movement; Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down compulsory
prayer in the schools and was blamed for the moral downfall of
America; and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which gave people basic
rights in encounters with the police and was decried as "pro-
criminal."  The campaign against the Court intensified with the
response to Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized the reproductive
rights of women as a matter of constitutional privacy but has been
depicted ever since by the right as the epitome of illegitimate
judicial activism.

The movement to turn the clock back on civil rights and civil
liberties in the courts has continued for decades and been
bolstered by the Chamber of Commerce and big business, which want
to see the federal judiciary enshrine new constitutional rights
for corporations while dismantling public regulation.

In recent decades, right-wing leaders have worked in popular
culture to attack the courts as a liberal peril while successfully
organizing to dominate and control legal institutions to create
courts that no longer look out for the rights of all Americans.
They have set up law schools and legal societies to promote
corporate and right-wing commitments, have promoted the
appointment of reactionary judges and Justices, blocked the
appointment of even moderate jurists, and defined a legal agenda
that subordinates individual rights to government power and public
regulation to corporate power.  Right-wing success in remaking the
judiciary in the image of the Republican Party has not led
conservatives to curb their bitter attack on "liberal judicial
activism," a fantasy that is several decades out of date but
indispensable to this smoke-and-mirrors operation.

Without mass education by progressives to reclaim the public
narrative about the courts, popular illusions about the nature of
our right-wing judiciary will persist.  A perfect example of
public confusion is the reaction to the Supreme Court's narrow
decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.  Chief Justice
Roberts' decisive vote to uphold the law was hailed on the left
and seen as a stunning betrayal on the right.  But what got little
attention was how conservative the logic of the decision to uphold
the ACA really was.  While the final outcome was good news for
progressives, Justice Roberts' opinion laid the groundwork for
severely restricting the ability of the federal government to
solve national problems under the Commerce Clause -- harkening
back to the gilded-age Lochner Era, when the Supreme Court
routinely struck down regulatory protections for ordinary
Americans.

The left needs to wake up.  PPP found that less than half of
Democrats recognized the conservative leaning of the Supreme
Court.  As the Supreme Court's blockbuster decisions on marriage
equality, voting rights and affirmative action come down this
spring we may have some reasons to celebrate and others to mourn.
But we will doubtless be reminded again that Supreme Court
decisions often have much less to do with evolving legal theory
than with which president appointed the Justices. Conservatives
know this and liberals need to wake up to it as well.

Four decades into conservative control of the Supreme Court
(through the Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts Courts), and well into
President Obama's second term, conservatives still promote the
absurd story that the Supreme Court and judiciary are "liberal."
We must do everything we can to correct the record and dispel the
lingering false impressions left by decades of strategic
disinformation.


* Surge in TCPA Consumer Class Actions Won't Abate Soon
-------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that the recent
explosion of consumer class actions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act is unlikely to die down anytime soon, as plaintiffs
continue to be enticed by uncapped damages and unclear statutory
language that allows them to easily accuse large corporations like
The Coca-Cola Co. of unwanted contact, attorneys say.

The beverage maker is one of scores of companies currently facing
nationwide consumer class actions accusing them of violating the
TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages, faxes or phone calls to
consumers.


* U.S. Companies in Denial About Gender Discrimination Problem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris LLP's Jonathan A. Segal, in an article in Fortune
Management, relates that every lawsuit should be taken seriously.
But, for employers, most individual claims are relatively
manageable.  But class actions, even if they lack merit, can be so
expensive to defend that they can seriously damage a company's
bottom line.

In May, Merck was hit with a $100 million sex discrimination suit
alleging that the company engaged in systemic gender bias.  The
complaint could be used in a law school as a way to teach
virtually every gender-based claim that could possibly be brought
against an employer.

The case includes many allegations of discrimination against
female and pregnant employees, and staffers who chose to take
family-medical leave.  The suit also claims that Merck engaged in
discriminatory promotional and payroll practices.  And the case
also includes less tangible "Boys' Club" allegations, which have
become increasingly common in gender bias cases.

In particular, the complaint against Merck alleges that "male
junior employees have opportunities to socialize with male senior
management to the exclusion of women.  Female employees are
excluded from these events, and thus excluded from opportunities
to develop relationships with senior management that provide
opportunities for advancement within Merck due to the company's
'tap-on-the shoulder' promotion policies . . ."

But Merck is far from alone. In a 2011 paper, Holland & Hart's
John M. Husband and Bradford J. Williams list private employers
who have settled class actions in the tens -- or even hundreds --
of millions of dollars, noting that it "reads like a who's who of
Fortune 500 companies."  Many, but not all, involve sex
discrimination.

Class actions are not going away.  First, there are plaintiffs'
lawyers who focus on class actions.  Let's face it: That's where
the money is for many lawyers.  Indeed, there are some plaintiffs'
lawyers who specifically focus on Fortune 500 companies.

Second, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in its
strategic plan, has prioritized eliminating systemic barriers in
hiring.  This priority will unavoidably focus on the way employers
give out promotions too.

It is highly likely that the EEOC's approach will involve more and
more class action suits because companywide or systemic issues
almost always involve a group of employees.  It is probably no
accident that the most recent EEOC commissioner appointee is an
attorney with significant class action expertise.

The fact that the Supreme Court threw out the gender bias class
action suit against Wal-Mart in 2011 should not provide employers
with a false sense of security.  In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the
proposed class had more than 1.5 million current and former female
employees.  Legal niceties aside, the Supreme Court held that
there was not sufficient commonality for the employees to proceed
as a class.  Indeed, the only real commonality among these
employees was their gender.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, we are seeing more
carefully worded class action complaints.  We are also seeing
smaller classes, where settlements may be "only" in the hundreds
of millions rather than in the billions of dollars.

So, it's fair to expect more gender bias class action suits
against employers.  Why aren't more employers doing more to change
their practices?

There obviously are legal risks of engaging in sex discrimination.
But perhaps even greater than the legal risks are the business
risks.  How can a company expect to survive, let alone thrive, if
half of the talent pool is excluded from key positions? There are
lots of theories on the topic.  For example, there is what the
EEOC calls "like me" bias.  Leaders hire, mentor, and sponsor
those who are "like them" and, so the thinking goes, as long as
more leaders are men, so will most of their replacements.

It's hard for many people to believe that their organization could
have a Boys' Club.  That they could be part of a Boys' Club is
inconceivable because it is inconsistent with how they see
themselves.

In some ways, such denial is not unlike the denial of addiction.
The first step in recovery is acknowledging the problem.  The
first step toward dismantling a Boys' Club is to acknowledge it
may exist.


                             *********

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  * * *